Arminian View Consequentially Different?

[seekingthetruth]

Whose premises are you calling illogical? To whom is this adressed?


I am not committed to this idea myself, but some have reasonably argued that God is timeless prior to the creative act, but has become temporal since creation and will become atemporal again!!!! An illustration would be: He created or dug a pond and then got into it, and will then get out of it.



It is a Biblical concept; granted, I believe it is somewhat of a condescension on God's part to speak on those terms, but he is trying to convey a property humans cannot relate to to temporal beings

I am referring to "D" in the OP.

As far as God being temporal? I think that is silly, he is everywhere and in every time. He is not waiting for tomorrow like we are...He is already there

John

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I am referring to "D" in the OP.

As far as God being temporal? I think that is silly, he is everywhere and in every time. He is not waiting for tomorrow like we are...He is already there

He IS IN every time? as in he is "currently" residing as it were in the past the present and the future???? I think maybe you mean to say he is simply outside of time altogether, Time is a very real thing dependent upon his creative act just like space and matter. I am just saying that some have reasonably argued (right or wrong) that "post" creation God has entered into time so to speak. It is not as silly as you are suggesting. Does the future even exist to be inhabited? Does the past?

 

[humblethinker]

Well, he knows that you will not do it, not that you cannot do it.

This is little comfort. You agree then that God knows that it could never be the case that I do it. One of the problems Arminians have with Calvinism is the idea that God could not be genuine in His appeals to the unelect to believe. In a very similar sense the arminian is in the same boat, or at least a similar boat... Hard for me to tell right now... And if they are just similar boats then it seems like their destination port is the same. I think you do, but allow me to ask, do you not see the same problem that I do? How we respond to the problem is one thing but to not see the problem at all is another.

I assume it is genuine in the sense that:
1.) His character is such that he truly desires that your choice would be other than it is and

So, how does one not pick up the Calvinist rebuttal here regarding God genuinely desiring something to happen that he knows will not and never could happen?

2.) He has at least provided sufficient grace for you to accept his appeal to salvation. I believe in something like prevenient grace bestowed on all people whereby any who are willing are capable of believing on Christ for salvation.

As an example: If we take the story of the rich young ruler: presumably, there was sufficient grace for him to follow Christ. The Bible says that Jesus looked upon him and he loved him. If Christ knew that the rich young ruler would refuse his offer, Christ nonetheless loved him, and truly desired his repentance. Christ also wept over Jerusalem, knowing that he would be rejected. I guess I see genuineness is sufficiently represented by God's character, and not that he must hold some falsifiable belief that there is a true likelihood of something occuring which will not in fact occur. Possibility is enough to satisfy that for me.

Yet, if possibility is not the case, then you would not be satisfied? Knowledge of the certain removes the hope and idea of possibility.

It is important I think, what one's view of the nature of time is. God knows what he knows timelessly, he doesn't peer into the future and percieve what will occur.

How does a being that is timeless relate to time? Is that not like proposing both A and not-A? While time as we experience it starts with creation, is it the case that there was not sequence before creation?

 

[HeirofSalvation]

This is little comfort. You agree then that God knows that it could never be the case that I do it.

No, I agree that God knows that it WILL not be the case. You probably think I am merely parsing words here, but it is the crux of my argument. Try these on for size?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX3uujCanf8&feature=relmfu
There are two parts, the assertion is basically that the determinists and the Open Theist both make the same error in viewing foreknowledge.

I think you do, but allow me to ask, do you not see the same problem that I do?

I DO see the problem, and given what I take to be your view on foreknowledge I would agree with you, but I think the view I espouse (the "Middle Knowledge" view) is the only way I know to solve the conundrum. IF that view I espouse is not true, I would have to agree with you.

So, how does one not pick up the Calvinist rebuttal here regarding God genuinely desiring something to happen that he knows will not and never could happen?

Calvinists randomly help themselves to whatever rebuttal they feel like at any given time. The trick they use is to have their theology swing on a pendulum that never stops. You know this, attempting to force them to admit the logical conclusion of their theology is like nailing jello to a wall. They talk about "free will" and in practice their definition of it (which you and I know is disingenuous) is no more signifigant than the free will exhibited by cockroaches. This is why Hyper-Calvinist Supra-lapsarians are the most wonderful beautiful people on Earth. They are the very definition of intellectual honesty. Infralapsarians simply help themselves to any definition of any given word at any time at will. (Well or by decree)

Yet, if possibility is not the case, then you would not be satisfied?

No, I would not. Raw possibility must remain, or I would hang it up and then choose between
1.) Hyper-Calvinism (the only logically consistent kind)
2.) Arminianism which merely says: "How does he know it?? heck if I know he just does."
3.) Open Theism
I would default to Arminianism I think.

Knowledge of the certain removes the hope and idea of possibility.

I know it is VERY counter-intuitive, but this is the very premise of yours that I am rejecting.

How does a being that is timeless relate to time? Is that not like proposing both A and not-A?

I don't think it is like proposing that at all. Jesus, after all, did in fact (while remaining fully Divine) step in to time, matter and space just as a man, and yet God is, and remains (in his essential nature at least) timeless and immaterial; thus not occupying space. Some people propose that God is timeless prior to the creative decree and has become temporal since the creative decree. That is one possibility that I am not committed to myself, but it is one possibility I suppose.

is it the case that there was not sequence before creation?

If you mean sequence of temporal events?? BINGO!! nosir there were not...
consider:

A.) If there were an infinite sequence of time prior to this one then the present moment has not yet arrived
B.) But the present moment HAS arrived
Therefore:
There has not been an infinite sequence of events prior to now

"Actual" infinities of any kind are self-defeating. Look up "Hilbert's Grand Hotel" It demonstrates the absurdity of "actual" infinites. Infinities ARE like saying A and -A!
Time MUST have had a beginning, Note too that the Bible says there will come a day when time shall be no more. Time is as much a part of the creative decree as anything else in the material universe. God created it, he will nix it when he is finished with it. Think Leibniz's question to Clarke, "Why Did God Not Create the Word Sooner? ...

If I may add this as an aside (and I forget who to credit this quote initially with) but I am paraphrasing anyway:
"It is up to God whether you find yourself in a world wherein you are predestined,
but it is up to YOU whether you are predestined in the world you are in" (paraphrased)

 

[AresMan]

Open theism seems to resolve the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable in believing that God knows what I will do and he also knows that it cannot ever be the case that I do otherwise, yet he still engages in a genuine appeal for me to do otherwise.

And "Calvinism" resolves the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable in believing that God is inherently bound to create in such a way that purposeless, unmitigated evil is very much a possibility and virtually guaranteed statistically, making God only able to create "dealing with the hand that is dealt Him" to be consistent with His presumed nature. The alternative to the view of the sovereign decree of God is a dualism of good and evil like zoorastrianism such that true goodness can only be rightly defined with the real presence of evil and likewise the other. In other words, you have God ultimately defining the warp and woof of what He creates, not the creation defining the being of its Creator in reverse.

I cannot accept the idea that purposeless, unmitigated evil is essentially necessary to "personhood" such that God has no choice but to create creatures that frustrate His highest will.

 

[humblethinker]

Just to reiterate my statement, "You agree then that God knows that it could never be the case that I do it.'. You replied:

No, I agree that God knows that it WILL not be the case.

I want to clarify what you mean by "No". Would you propose that God does not know that nothing could happen contrary to his foreknowledge? You and I would both agree that nothing 'has', 'could', 'would' or 'will' happen contrary to God's foreknowledge, correct? (I am not being sarcastic, but do correct me if I'm inaccurate.)

Now, If God knows that it will not be the case, then why would you say that God does not also know that it could not be the case, especially since the 'will not' was a known truth before anything else actually occurred.

You probably think I am merely parsing words here, but it is the crux of my argument.

No, I don't see it as parsing words... it's a subject that one could get confused or easily mis-speak and convey the wrong meaning. I appreciate your attempt at clarity and specificity.

Try these on for size?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX3uujCanf8&feature=relmfu
There are two parts, the assertion is basically that the determinists and the Open Theist both make the same error in viewing foreknowledge.

Very good videos. The interviewer, Kuhn, does a very good job.
I understand the assertions and it being accurate does not bother me, nor do I think it necessarily proves anything. It seems that that point is made in an effort to inflate the idea of 'balance', why else would it be so?. Since when would the idea of 'balance' have a substantial impact as to what truth is? I don't think you would disagree with me there.

I DO see the problem, and given what I take to be your view on foreknowledge I would agree with you, but I think the view I espouse (the "Middle Knowledge" view) is the only way I know to solve the conundrum. IF that view I espouse is not true, I would have to agree with you.

I understand.

Calvinists randomly help themselves to whatever rebuttal they feel like at any given time. The trick they use is to have their theology swing on a pendulum that never stops. You know this, attempting to force them to admit the logical conclusion of their theology is like nailing jello to a wall. They talk about "free will" and in practice their definition of it (which you and I know is disingenuous) is no more signifigant than the free will exhibited by cockroaches. This is why Hyper-Calvinist Supra-lapsarians are the most wonderful beautiful people on Earth. They are the very definition of intellectual honesty. Infralapsarians simply help themselves to any definition of any given word at any time at will. (Well or by decree)

Yes, I like them too!

No, I would not. Raw possibility must remain, or I would hang it up and then choose between
1.) Hyper-Calvinism (the only logically consistent kind)
2.) Arminianism which merely says: "How does he know it?? heck if I know he just does."
3.) Open Theism

This is where I have a problem with what I take to be your view. Since it is the case that we are in a world in which there is at least one conscious human bearing His image, that will forever be tormented forever, then why would God, using middle knowledge, deliberate on a decision to create such a world? And to be sure, there are many more than just one in this world (more than half of all humans some would say!) that will experience a conscious eternal torment.

Moving along... I post this to help give context. I said, "Knowledge of the certain removes the hope and idea of possibility. "

I know it is VERY counter-intuitive, but this is the very premise of yours that I am rejecting.

Yes, it is counter-intuitive. This could be a whole thread to itself (and maybe should be!)

I don't think it is like proposing that at all. Jesus, after all, did in fact (while remaining fully Divine) step in to time, matter and space just as a man, and yet God is, and remains (in his essential nature at least) timeless and immaterial; thus not occupying space. Some people propose that God is timeless prior to the creative decree and has become temporal since the creative decree. That is one possibility that I am not committed to myself, but it is one possibility I suppose.


If you mean sequence of temporal events?? BINGO!! nosir there were not...

(We said 'BINGO!! at the same time! :laugh
I agree, there was no 'metering' or 'measuring' of sequence resulting in duration. Wikipedia defines time as: Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.

Regarding sequence, I would not say that the duration of the sequential events were/are measurable, but yet they are events and there was a before and and after... "time" is not needed for that to be true.

So, there was no 'sequence of temporal events'. But yet, there was and still is sequence. For whatever reason (and I believe one reason was so that we humans could appreciate the sequence of events), God created time to 'meter' and 'measure' so that we eternal beings with beginnings could experience what the Trinity had always experienced and that is a relationship with God, which means give and take... which is sequence. How could we humans experience and appreciate relationship without time or duration? It seems plausible that this is why He created time, so that He could share this wonderful relationship with beings 'other' than himself, who actually had a beginning. What a love story!

consider:

A.) If there were an infinite sequence of time prior to this one then the present moment has not yet arrived
B.) But the present moment HAS arrived
Therefore:
There has not been an infinite sequence of events prior to now

"Actual" infinities of any kind are self-defeating. Look up "Hilbert's Grand Hotel" It demonstrates the absurdity of "actual" infinites. Infinities ARE like saying A and -A!

Well, I would say that right at 'A.)' your premise fails... I would not say that there is "an infinite sequence of time". With this failed premise all that follows would therefore not necessarily apply, especially the conclusion. Time is not necessary for 'events' or 'sequence' to exist (I refer you to my comments above regarding the Trinity).

Time MUST have had a beginning, Note too that the Bible says there will come a day when time shall be no more. Time is as much a part of the creative decree as anything else in the material universe. God created it, he will nix it when he is finished with it.

I agree. But He did not create sequence, it is a logical result of God being a Trinity of 'others', therefore logically inferring 'relationship', and therefore logically inferring 'sequence'.

Think Leibniz's question to Clarke, "Why Did God Not Create the Word Sooner? ...

:thumbsup:Ahhh! That's a great one! I wish I thought of that. There are other things that Leibniz said that got me thinking, that's for sure! What a great mind was Leibniz's!

I really do enjoy your conversation HoS. Thank you.:wavey:

 

[HeirofSalvation]

I cannot accept the idea that purposeless, unmitigated evil is essentially necessary to "personhood" such that God has no choice but to create creatures that frustrate His highest will.

Quick question: Are you appealing to an idea that God has a "revealed will" and also a "secret will" ?

I would take issue with this:

such that God has no choice but to create creatures

from either a non-OT or Open Theist view, I don't think this is a necessary assumption, I don't think OT's believe this. I think they believe he Sovereignly chose to do things a certain way.

Is God's sovereignty so limited by a Cal-that he has to have his own way like a 3-year-old child who demands that all details make him perfectly happy at all times? Or are you simply suggesting something about the necessity of his character. Just trying to clarify.

Oh... and loving your book, Aresman WE ARE LEARNING SO MUCH!! the wife and I:love2:

:tongue3:But I think we are leaning towards the "3 tithes" explanation more:laugh: Well, you win some you lose some :godisgood:

EVERYONE PURCHASE ARESMAN'S BRILLIANT BOOK....USE CASH MONEY$$$$$$$

 

[humblethinker]

And "Calvinism" resolves the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable in believing that God is inherently bound to create in such a way that purposeless, unmitigated evil is very much a possibility and virtually guaranteed statistically, [snip]

Yet, Calvinism does not resolve the cognitive dissonance that God purposed and performed evil. If this is a caricature of what you believe then I propose that your description is a caricature of what Arminianism or Openness teaches.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

AAARRGGGHHH!!!!! take it easy there humble, to my knowledge... I am the only Molinist on BB! Your questions are too poingnant, reasonable and well thought out. Throw me a frikkin bone here... Hello fellow followers of a 16th century Catholic theologian whose sole purpose was to fight the reformation!!! Where you at??

O.K. I will try, forgive me if my answers are not adequate:

Would you propose that God does not know that nothing could happen contrary to his foreknowledge?

No, the real hang-up for me is actually the word COULD Seriously, that's all. Other than that, I agree with 90% of your premises. That is why I truly fear that you might think I am "creating divisions about strifes of words" or parsing words as I said before. I HONESTLY believe that the difference between will and could is signifigant. It is the difference to me between a necessary truth and a contingent truth. Perhaps if I put it this way. God believes all true propositions and believes no false ones. Alternatively, God knows only and all true propositions. Now, let us take tense away from all propositions:

1.) Christ will die in a.d. 30 (future tense))
2.) Christ dies today (present tense)
3.) Christ died in a.d. 30 (past tense)

God knows all truths timelessly, thus what God knows is simply the proposition "Christ dies a.d. 30". Propositions only exist in the present no?

Now, If God knows that it will not be the case, then why would you say that God does not also know that it could not be the case, especially since the 'will not' was a known truth before anything else actually occurred

.

I would say the difference is between something being logically prior and something being temporally prior. The actual propositional content of what it is that God knows is contingent upon what his free creatures will do in any given situation.

The interviewer, Kuhn, does a very good job.

LOL He does!!, secretly, I think he was acting like a lawyer and he already knew what WLC was going to say! I almost get the idea that it was a set-up wherein he either was a molinist himself, or he at least knew the questions to ask to get Craig to answer the questions Craig wanted to answer from the beginning. If it was a truly organic interview so to speak then yes, he did a truly amazing job!!

It seems that that point is made in an effort to inflate the idea of 'balance', why else would it be so?. Since when would the idea of 'balance' have a substantial impact as to what truth is? I don't think you would disagree with me there.

I will answer this even though I am not positive I understand you. If you are asking me something to the effect of (in my words):

"Do you hold to this point of view largely and/or solely because this is the viewpoint that (in your opinion) answers the most questions you have and poses the least number of problems?"

Yes, absolutely....:tongue3: Is there a better reason to hold a particular point of view about something?? Remember, I have the unenviable task of reconciling a belief in individual pre-destination and election to Salvation and real libertarian free-will (or as normal people understand it) "free will". One must add the otherwise completely unnecessary modifiers of "real" and "libertarian" to the simple notion of "free will" in order to speak intelligibly to people who have grown accustomed to the redefinition and abuse of words that Calvinists generate. If that isn't what you were asking, I'm sorry Please elaborate

Yes, I like them too!

WOOT!! all hail the Hypers!

This is where I have a problem with what I take to be your view. Since it is the case that we are in a world in which there is at least one conscious human bearing His image, that will forever be tormented forever, then why would God, using middle knowledge, deliberate on a decision to create such a world? And to be sure, there are many more than just one in this world (more than half of all humans some would say!) that will experience a conscious eternal torment

I will (for now) although I could elaborate my view much more.... for the sake of brevity.... don't Open Theists have the same problem???? Don't all of us? The answer I would propose covers every Soteriological position, (well it covers Calvinism weakly) but that is the nature of the hateful God they worship. And decidedly, yes, it is much more than 50% We discuss that later maybe?

Yes, it is counter-intuitive.

Very..... but I still am thinking it is accurate, at least as far as it goes. Unless I am mistaken, I think that you are still defining your position (as I am) I am not dogmatically commited to my position, I don't think you are either.. "iron sharpeneth iron" no?????

Wikipedia defines time as: Time is a part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify rates of change such as the motions of objects.

As you already know, or will soon learn, admitting that Wiki was a source you looked up, (despite the general accuracy of much of its content) will allow the uninformed to conclude you don't know what you are talking about (even though all of us do it).

That being said: I actually do take issue with their definition of time....
I am no authority on the topic but ... as far as I can tell there is an equivocation on their part. I would (somewhat ignorantly) argue that they are equivocating between our ability to measure time and the ontological reality of time itself. I will simply stop here on this without answering the rest of your statement because we have covered too much ground already. Bring up the totality of your objections later PLEASE

What a love story!

No matter what ones views are... if it doesn't make you think, nay, FEEL like this... it simply is not of God....period.

Well, I would say that right at 'A.)' your premise fails... I would not say that there is "an infinite sequence of time". With this failed premise all that follows would therefore not necessarily apply, especially the conclusion. Time is not necessary for 'events' or 'sequence' to exist (I refer you to my comments above regarding the Trinity).

I have obviously misunderstood you then, because I thought I had you pinned down for the count, nailed to a wall and begging for mercy. Drat and Be-bother, I guess I must ask you to elaborate your position more then, because I had previously thought you a less worthy adversarry than you are.... c'mon...... you at least have Van working with you.... do I got no one? :laugh:

Ahhh! That's a great one! I wish I thought of that.

he he... yes I must admit... it was an ingenious move to honestly or dishonestly invoke Leibniz in whatever argument I was making... too bad... I thought of it first.... he is now in my column!!!:tongue3:

I really do enjoy your conversation HoS. Thank you.

Oh, and I yours.....THANK YOU!!!:1_grouphug: