Interaction with perfect foreknowledge?

[STONE]

Where did you get that definition? Settled basically means definite. If God foreknows something as definitely going to happen, then that aspect of the future is "settled." The OV generally holds that God knows the future. Namely, that He knows the future exactly as it is -- partly settled and mostly open. He knows that in an open situation, it may happen one way or another, or perhaps it will probably happen one way, and unlikely to happen another. That is how it is, and that is how God sees it, exactly as it is -- open and unsettled.

The term "settled" removes causation from the issue, which is useful because of all the equivocation on the term "determined." You can determine something in the sense of foreordaining it, or determine it passively as in the case of middle knowledge. But if something in the future is "settled," this has nothing to do with whether God caused it or not, and simply means that it's definitely going to happen that way.

Really. I always thought OV'ers believe that God only knows past, present, and what He will do. The problem here is that what God "will do" is contingent upon an open future and free will entities. This is what I mean by OV'ers using settled defined as "will likely occur to some degree/extent".

 

[godrulz]

Forwarded from battle royal thread


So you are saying the actual number is close to 1/3, or approximate, no need to exagerate. How does God know 2000 or more years into the future that the number of free will individuals destroyed in rev 9:18 will not be 1/4 or 1/2? In such case that the number varied would He then be wrong? Or does he assure the number will be (at least close to) 1/3?

God has control over the extent of the judgments. He could target certain areas or nations. Even the census in the OT was not exact numbers.

 

[godrulz]

Really. I always thought OV'ers believe that God only knows past, present, and what He will do. The problem here is that what God "will do" is contingent upon an open future and free will entities. This is what I mean by OV'ers using settled defined as "will likely occur to some degree/extent".

He is not limited in His options to creatively, responsively bring the future to pass. If Judas did not betray Jesus, someone else could have. If soldier X did not pierce His side, then soldier Y could have (same end result).

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: We agree in this context God said He would not change His mind. It does not mean He could not change it metaphysically and absolutely.

Well, the point I was raising is still at issue, though, how can we pick a meaning other than "change his mind" in Num. 23:19? This meaning for the word here would indeed mean that God (absolutely) cannot, and will not, change his mind.

Guy: It seems to me that God meant to be more harsh, less compassionate, or more judgemental, then became more lenient, compassionate, or forgiving. I don't see here how God is not changing His mind by using the word 'relent.' He obviously changed his will from one state to another.

When the situation changes, would God not change his response, though? For example a lead balloon turns into a helium balloon and the laws of nature cause the balloon to rise, instead of fall, and yet the laws of nature have not changed, only their response to the balloon, when it changed.

So "less harsh" would be due to the circumstances changing, which would then explain a change in God's response, and if he knew circumstances would change, then he didn't change his intent, or his mind.

Clete: Relent means to slacken or to capitulate, this is not what the word in the original means at all. God does not capitulate or slacken like some silly public school teacher.

I agree that the meaning in Num. 23:19 cannot be relent, and it also cannot mean "be fickle"! That is not a possible meaning for "nacham," and thus we cannot say it means that here.

Godrulz: If Judas did not betray Jesus, someone else could have.

Only Scripture says this was actually known in advance:

John 6:64 For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.

Guy: When I personally broke through that barrier to being able to think of God, as a perfect being, changing His mind, it made God more real to me. The concept of God as a living God is so much more meaningful to me.

The problem is that with this degree of freedom, comes fallibility, for if God can really change his mind, then we need not always obey God, for another decision might turn out best, even from God's perspective, and thus we need not always obey him.

This, however, is contrary to Scripture.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[insolafide]

How am I endorsing theological fatalism? I don't think anything is fated to happen at all except that which God Himself intends to make happen. I'm the one here who is saying that God DOES NOT have exhaustive foreknowledge. I am using the fact that exhaustive foreknowledge would logically lead to theological fatalism as an arugment AGAINST exhaustive foreknoweldge so I don't see how you could be saying that I endorse it. I don't endorse it, I outright deny it.

ROFL. You are endorsing Theological Fatalism, but in order to escape it you deny that God has exhaustive foreknowledge. I am saying that Theological Fatalism ITSELF is false, and we dont need to deny God exhaustive foreknowledge in order to escape it. See?

I understand the point Craig makes but I think I've addressed his argument quite well.

umm, if you really understood His argument you wouldnt be an open theist. You would be a Molinist.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at and will concede that for the moment but how is the original syllogism flawed?

Which one is that? The one with the Conclusion "X will happen"?

Its not flawed. Thats just the point. Open Theists (implicitly) believe that "X will happen" means that "X will necessarily happen" and therefore is not compatible with human free will. But "X will happen" is completely compatible with free will. Since X is then contingent, and not necessary. And it is contingent on the human agent's free will choices!

If it is necessarily true that what God knows will happen will in fact happen and God knows a future event then that event will happen. It cannot not happen.

THATS JUST IT!!! you just wrote "if it is necessarily true". IT ISNT NECESSARILY true, it just is true. And if it is contingent, then it is fully compatible with the fact that the human agent could have chosen otherwise.

God's knowledge of an event is a sufficient condition of that events certainty to happen.

this is the big equivocation point for Open Theism. When you write "certainty" all you can conclude is that GOD is certain that it will happen. But that doesnt mean that the event could not fail to happen. It could fail to happen, since the agent could choose differently. But - if the agent would choose differently, then God would have known differently.

How does that not convey the same information as the original syllogism? Or asked another way, why is it needed for the conclusion to be logically necessary in order for the logic to detroy the coexistence of foreknowledge and free will?

Because that would demonstrate that the agent could not possibly choose otherwise, and hence the agent is no longer free. In other words, all we need to show is that a truth is contingent to show that the agent is free. Because in terms of free decisions, the Molinist would say that God does not determine which free decisions are true and which are false, thus we must conclude that the contingency is found in the freedom of the agent themselves.

Yes, I do. But it seems that if the conclusion is true then it's 'logical necessity' or lack thereof is irrelivent to the argument because if it is true then I cannot see how free will can coexist with God's exhaustive foreknowledge.

Because the agent then has power to choose otherwise. That something "will" happen does not contradict that it could not have happenned.

Very well, as I said, I think I'm ready to concede that "X will necessarilly happen." is a violation of the rules of logic but how does that help your case?
If it is true that "X will happen" then what difference does it make whether that truth is a necessary truth or not? If it is true then I don't have the ability to do otherwise and so I am not free. I don't see how this logical technicality disolves my argument in the slightest.

Thats just it, you DO have the ability to do otherwise. Since "will" does not contradict "could not". "necessarily will" does contradict it, though. So in order for Open Theism to be a necessary position, you need for the syllogism to conclude with "X will necessarily happen". But it doesnt.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. I asked the same question 3 times I think in this post. :doh:
You only have to answer it once.

its okay, they were slightly different, so i answered it three times, hopefully expaining it a little differently.

peace,
jd

 

[godrulz]

Hi everyone,


Only Scripture says this was actually known in advance:

John 6:64 For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him.



Blessings,
Lee

This is not from the beginning of Genesis 1:1 or eternity past. Jesus did not chose a devil. Judas became one. Jesus knew early on in His ministry who would betray Him, since Judas was already going sour early on. This is not a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies.

 

[STONE]

What's a stretch; the idea that the world might repent, or the idea that if they do God will also?

If you are refering to the former then I agree, it is a stretch in the extreme, but if you mean the latter then it isn't a stretch at all.

The idea that the judgement referred to in revelation is only a likely possibility is a stretch.

"The possibility of Jesus Christ, which God speculated unto him, to surmise unto his servants things which might shortly come to pass..." -The OV Translation

 

[godrulz]

Practically, we all agree that Revelation will unfold as planned since God is control of judgments, the destiny of Satan, and the return of Christ. John writes in a cyclical style, so the chronology is not always easy to ascertain. Much of Revelation is also broad and general, rather than specific down to what every human will do during this time.

 

[GuySmiley]

When the situation changes, would God not change his response, though? For example a lead balloon turns into a helium balloon and the laws of nature cause the balloon to rise, instead of fall, and yet the laws of nature have not changed, only their response to the balloon, when it changed.

So "less harsh" would be due to the circumstances changing, which would then explain a change in God's response, and if he knew circumstances would change, then he didn't change his intent, or his mind.

So you are saying that God's response changed, but not His mind. What is the difference? If He originally intended one response, then changed to another response, He changed His mind. So you are then forced to say that He foreknew the circumstance change. If He foreknew, then His response never really changed. He would know that there was only one reponse all along. Problem is, the verse says He relented, or more accurately repented, so His response did change.

(Cut and paste lengthy debate on foreknowlege here)

The problem is that with this degree of freedom, comes fallibility,

For humans but not for God. God does not have freedom? He's a robot, just like humans are under foreknowledge?

Greg

 

[godrulz]

If the future was closed and foreknown, the language about God becomes specious. Why not take it at face value even if it flies in the face of a preconceived view that was influenced by philosophy?

 

[Clete]

The idea that the judgement referred to in revelation is only a likely possibility is a stretch.

"The possibility of Jesus Christ, which God speculated unto him, to surmise unto his servants things which might shortly come to pass..." -The OV Translation

Okay whatever. If you need to remove what I say that far from the reality of what you know I mean in order to create an argument against it then so be it. Have fun burning down all the straw men that you like.

:wave2:

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Godrulz: Jesus knew early on in His ministry who would betray Him, since Judas was already going sour early on. This is not a proof text for exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies.

But "from the beginning" indicates more than just early on, it indicates "from the natural starting point," which would be, I expect, when he chose Judas.

Greg: If He originally intended one response, then changed to another response, He changed His mind.

Yes, if God's intent changed, then he must have really changed his mind. Yet a change from severity to compassion need not describe to us God's overall intent, as at Nineveh, with sending Jonah, with a message of severe warning, to bring repentance, so God could show compassion.

So you are then forced to say that He foreknew the circumstance change.

Yes, and also Jonah though the circumstance indeed would change! So he ran. And he was correct, he concluded that he was being sent on a mission of mercy, and thus God probably knew what would happen if he went and preached. So he tried not to go and preach!

If He foreknew, then His response never really changed.

But did Jesus not change his response at the grave of Lazarus, yet with foreknowledge that his response would change?

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

But Jesus knew he would raise Lazarus, and that his response to Mary and Martha would change from grief, to "take away the stone."

Lee: The problem is that with this degree of freedom, comes fallibility...

Greg: For humans but not for God. God does not have freedom? He's a robot, just like humans are under foreknowledge?

But you skipped my concern here, certainly God has freedom, but uncertainty is not required for freedom. But here is the question: "if God can really change his mind, then we need not always obey God, for another decision might turn out best, even from God's perspective, and thus we need not always obey him."

But again, this is quite contrary to Scripture.

Godrulz: If the future was closed and foreknown, the language about God becomes specious. Why not take it at face value even if it flies in the face of a preconceived view that was influenced by philosophy?

Because then we need not always obey him? And because we can only choose "change his mind" as the meaning in this verse:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Read how Jesus chose Judas. It was after praying to the Father. He did not chose a devil to be entrusted with the Gospel and His inner circle. The chronology clearly shows that Judas devolved into his end state. Just because it was comparatively sooner rather than later, does not mean you can read into the text that he was chosen as a rebel after prayer. A careful reading of all the texts about Judas resonates with Open Theism. Closed theism leads to fatalistic conclusions (Judas had no choice and was predestined to be evil...making God responsible) and makes God/Jesus duped in the choice. Judas was called an apostle initially, not a son of perdition. Satan entered near the end, not early on.

 

[STONE]

Okay whatever. If you need to remove what I say that far from the reality of what you know I mean in order to create an argument against it then so be it. Have fun burning down all the straw men that you like.

You made it clear that the Judgement in Revelation is only one possibility:
Quote:
Lee: Then God might not judge the world, as described in Revelation?

Clete: That's exactly right! If the world repents, so will God and He will not judge them as predicted

Remember this?

Just admit you were wrong, or support that the world has some possibility to negate the judgement of revelation as you suggested.

 

[STONE]

Practically, we all agree that Revelation will unfold as planned since God is control of judgments, the destiny of Satan, and the return of Christ. John writes in a cyclical style, so the chronology is not always easy to ascertain. Much of Revelation is also broad and general, rather than specific down to what every human will do during this time.

Okay, but could you clarify what you mean by God is in control of judgements, etc...?

 

[Clete]

You made it clear that the Judgement in Revelation is only one possibility:
Quote:
Lee: Then God might not judge the world, as described in Revelation?

Clete: That's exactly right! If the world repents, so will God and He will not judge them as predicted

Remember this?

Just admit you were wrong, or support that the world has some possibility to negate the judgement of revelation as you suggested.

I wasn't wrong. God does not judge the repentant. IF the world repented (yes, that's a big IF), so would God. That's just the sort of guy He is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[STONE]

I wasn't wrong. God does not judge the repentant. IF the world repented (yes, that's a big IF), so would God. That's just the sort of guy He is.

Resting in Him,
Clete

With that big IF you are creating a contingency. That contingency suggests that the Judgment of Revelation is, at best, extremely probable. This of course also suggests there is a possibility, albeit slim, of Revelation being wrong.

I think you are being more consistent than most OV'ers.

 

[Clete]

With that big IF you are creating a contingency. That contingency suggests that the Judgment of Revelation is, at best, extremely probable. This of course also suggests there is a possibility, albeit slim, of Revelation being wrong.

I think you are being more consistent than most OV'ers.

I know of no OVer who would disagree with me. Revelation isn't wrong it's simply conditional, just as are all of God's prophesies of punishment.

Jer. 18:7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will repent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it.​

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[STONE]

Revelation isn't wrong it's simply conditional

Conditional implies the possibility of Revelation's judgment not happening as you before stated. There is no getting around it.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Conditional implies the possibility of Revelation's judgment not happening as you before stated. There is no getting around it.

why is that a problem?