Featured Divine Foreknowledge: Circumstances, Possibilities, Volitional Options and Truth

Oh, NO! I’m not letting you get away with that rabbit trail again! I just got finished posting, and you confirmed, OVT proponents do not believe God possess MK. Yet, in the same breath you go back to making poor HoS your scapegoat for you not understanding the mechanics and are saying weeeelll if I misunderstood because of HoS …then weeeelll “of course OVT would claim that God had MK at the deliberation and since then as well” Whoa there! …PUT on the brakes! OVT does not accept MK regardless of your own personal sacrificial scapegoat!

If you want to use MK then you need to jump the fence and come on over because that’s the only way I gunna let you have it. NOW, let’s take a little peak at what you’re stuck with IF you don’t have MK as to how OVT answers the question while they go about insisting the “mechanics” of MK does not work.

Here in the same statement from OVT proponents: Exhibits A&B

“In fact, we do not even believe that God always knows beforehand exactly how things will turn out in the future”

Now, if you’re in agreement with them on MK you can start waving goodbye to divine foreknowledge. This is what I’ve been saying to you about OVT proponents and holding on to the attributes associated with divine foreknowledge all along. You can’t logically hold on to it within that system.

You want some more? :smilewinkgrin: He continues on the same page:

"But since we believe that God can know only what can be known and that what humans will freely do in the future cannot be known beforehand, we believe that God can never know with certainty what will happen in any context involving freedom of choice." - GOODBYE DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE!

Further I’ve challenged you to show just one OVT proponent that backs your argument that they hold to DF:

“an Open View Theist that holds onto foreknowedge, because I think that island still looks the same” (post 11) = Unanswered…

I’ve refuted your statements that MK cannot exist through a minimum (regardless if you do not understand the mechanics of it because of that scapegoat of yours) by setting that issue aside I preceeded to show you MK on grounds that the scriptures present it to exist. Again (post 11) = Unanswered…

Listen carefully, you’ve got butter all over your fingers and there is NO WAY you’re going to snatch MK’s ball away from Molinism here while you try to be in this game through switching sides and blaming your actions on HoS...AGAIN. If you want OVT you arrive at it without MK! None of your proponents agree with you...

I’ve got your rabbit legs tied to a string around my neck while standing over a hot stove cooking rabbit stew! Here is what some of the little hoppers looked like:

1) OVT proponents have been logically shown to deny divine foreknowledge through their own words.

2) You have not presented one OVT argument that shows they hold to DF.

3) You have not presented one Molinist (other than supposedly HoS) that agrees there are not real alternatives, yet continue to rely on that strawman and assign determinism. I've asked that if in fairness I could say OVT forgoes DF on the same rationalization...in the meantime I have presented OVT agreeing that God does not hold to DF (Exhibits A&B) thereby leaving them no alternative but for that view to forego DF (thereby a sacrifice of the divine attribute of DF). Again, your asking for a "gimme" on this while avoiding Molinism's one up on OVT. :BangHead: ... no can do! Molinism makes no such sacrifice of divine attributes..."willingly" as shown that OVT does. Molinists argue to hold them, that is why the system is superior and on the right track and where OVT is in the pits. I'm not sure how many ways I have to spell this out for you to get you to admit it?

4) You have not refuted that the scripture I provided shows MK exist ...and will not without foregoing divine foreknowledge. BTW, that is point of me starting with that scripture. *wink*

5) You have failed to show how OVT does not own either determinism or forego divine foreknowledge by their logic through giving even one example other than trying to “borrow” what Molinist provide through MK.

6) Molinism does in fact argue that MK exists and OVT in fact argues it does not exists, thus at a very minimum Molinism has one up on OVT by offering a solution where God maintains both DF and LFW. (whether you consider it valid or not) see #4.

 

You appear to be on the right track to me. :thumbs:

 

I’m going to take a vacation from the board, but before I go:

Relevant to some of the things brought up in the tread, that is, if HT still has any interest in after possibly thinking I’ve been a little over aggressive in my techniques of taking him the mat. I’ll chill before I go in case I’m hurting anyone’s feelers. So, apart from OVT/Molinism comparisons, I dug up some notes I thought did a fair job exploring the relationships between possible created worlds, %, LFW and divine foreknowledge and will add my thoughts that relate to Gods’ judgment, within time, into what worlds He may allow to exist according to the variable circumstances.

First, I should explain God does have sovereign control, just not in the way the determinists relate it to divine foreknowledge and predestination.

William Lane Craig explains, "It is up to God whether we find ourselves in a world in which we are predestined, but it is up to us whether we are predestined in the world in which we find ourselves."

Concerning the % of possible worlds and of # of salvations …Yes, God is in control, but lest anyone doubt let me reassure you I am a card carrying LFWer and as far from a determinists view as far can get before I continue on with using this word "predestined"; that said, :saint: consider the possibility if God predestined a world where everyone had a 100% opportunity of everyone being saved (a perfect world) but they had the free will to change circumstances as time advanced? God’s judgment, His influence and our responses would be in play in the matter all along and in the end His judgment would be just according to our accountability as things moved along in time:

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. (Deu 32:4)

Keathley explains a scenario that fits in with the above using the ambulance analogy. “Imagine you wake up and discover that you are in an ambulance being transported to the emergency room. You clearly require serious medical help. If you do nothing, you will be delivered to the hospital. However, if for whatever reason you demand to be let out, the driver will comply. He may express his concern, warn you of the consequences, but he will abide by your wishes. You receive no credit for being taken to the hospital, you receive all the blame for getting out. This is a picture of the Molinist view of salvation.”

Another way to look at it, …I should put on my Bible-speak glasses for this: For every man is given Light (John 1:9) in the world and one has the freedom to follow that light or not (John 1:12), there is a path (Proverbs 2:7-13) to which God will provide to every man who hears wisdom in love of truth (2Th 2:12,13) so that none will have an excuse (Rom 1:20) and it is clear God’s truth in judgment is based on our responsibility. There are many possible worlds (Hebrews 11:3) along the way but there are also many who would choose the wide gate rather than the strait gate (Mat 7:14) God interacts with us within time and it is true that God’s judgment in everyman’s journey along the way will be just (Deut 32:4).

There is a lot of confusion out there concerning Molinism, but I like this brief description of the mechanics concerning middle knowledge:

“In order to understand middle knowledge in the context of omniscience, we finite beings break down God’s knowledge by logical relationship. First, there is God’s natural knowledge. This contains knowledge of all necessary truths (like “2+2=4” or “there are no married bachelors”) and all logical possibilities. Thus, one could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that could be. Next, there is God’s free knowledge. This is called “free” because the content of this knowledge is what God chose to be so. This includes God’s knowledge of this actual world (i.e. everything that is true in the history of the world up till now, and indeed throughout the potentially-infinite future).[2] One could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that will be. Finally, we have God’s middle knowledge. This is knowledge of a counterfactual form. This form is “if Gary were in circumstances C, Gary would freely do X.” One could say this is God’s knowledge of everything that would be in any other circumstances. In this way, God’s knowledge spans what could be, what will be, and what would be in every circumstance.”

Hope my view of it helps to clear up the position for you at least a little.

God Bless.