Baptist but not a Calvinist?

[Faith alone]

FA: Craig says that those who say this "err in thinking that God judges people on the basis of what they would do rather than what they in fact do." God doesn't judge people based on what they possibly might have done, but on what they did or will actually do.

HP: There are so many issue involved. I will but take this one to address first, as I see it of great importance.

God judges according to the intent of the heart, not simply the act subsequent to the intent. In morals, intent is everything. Scripture bears this out clearly. If you hate your brother in you heart, God sees you as a murderer even if you have not actually killed your brother yet. God see one as an adulterer when one simply lusts after one in their heart. Sin or righteousness is determined antecedent to any action, and is determined and judged by God at the point of formation of the intent in the will.

On the other hand, you can kill another, but if your motivation was not selfish in nature, and it was done in self-defense of to save the life of another, I believe you are justified. The same goes for accidents, such as the Scriptural illustration of the axe head coming off. No selfish intent, no sin in morals, as explained by Scripture and reason.

God most certainly can and will judge us on things we never actually had the opportunity to carry out. For instance, if I decide top commit murder and form the intent to carry it out if I have the opportunity, whether or not the opportunity ever arises I am as guilty as if though I actually did it in the eyes of God.

On this point I find Craig to be in moral error. This is sure to affect other issues in his theology as well. We need to start thinking right about morals if we are ever going to find the truth.

HP,

All Dr. Craig is saying is that people have rejected the MK view because they say that in such a system God judges people not only for their morals and actions, thoughts, etc., but for what they WOULD HAVE done or COULD HAVE done, though they never did so. His arguments is that God judges people just the same as in other systems. IOW, Craig does not disagree with the simple foreknowledge system in this respect at all.

I think you need to find something more significant than this for showing the flaws in the system. This is a peripheral issue. And those who argue against the MK framework do so with just the opposite approach than you're taking.

I understand your concern about intent. Craig was not disagreeing with this. He was simply saying that a MK viewpoint does not require God to judge people for all the possibilities which never happened. For example, God will not judge someone for some wrong thought which he might have had, but which never occured. That's called a "counterfactual" - something which might have happened in some world which never existed. Some who oppose MK say God would do so.


Actually, I am just interested with what you think about how the MK system handles the whole election-sovereignty vs. free-will debate. One warning here, this is a very deep subject, and I have barely touched the surface. I think you would need to do some research on it.

Also, what do you say to the argument that a simple foreknowledge system (the system I believe you are espousing) does not have God truly sovereign and in control of the universe, or that it does not allow for a God to truly predetermine (predestinate) what happens, but to only observe what happens? That is what Calvinists say about the simple foreknowledge position.

IOW, your system is much closer to an "open theism" system than is middle knowledge. In SF, God does not in any way predestinate who will trust in His Son, but only allows the opportunity. Since you are so opposed to OT, as am I, I am surprised that you object so strongly to MK when it is much stronger in opposition to OT than is your own system.


Now all this said, I am not trying to start a debate on middle knowledge (which is mainly misunderstood) or simple foreknowledge. This thread is about Baptists who are not Calvinists and whether or not that is possible. (It is. The vast majority of Baptists are not Reformed.) I was simply trying to explain how I can take the position which I do - which is closer to the Reformed position regarding election, and yet hold to a system in which is fully "whosover will" at the same time. I've explained how that can be - to an extent. I have found that those who find themselves in a quandrary between personal election, which is clearly IMO taught in scripture, and free choice, which is also clearly taught in scripture, find middle knowledge intriguing.

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

HP: I find this strange, that while we try and sort out the foreknowledge of God, which we both agree is beyond our comprehension, at the same time we are found to be swallowing a distinctively Augustinian/Calvinistic dogma that clearly destroys all accountability and human responsibility and places all men under the cloud of fatalistic determination. I was under the impression that 'middle knowledge' is designed to to free us from thinking, but how can it if we hold tenaciously to the very principles that land us in the trap of determinism in the first place? Do you have any ideas as to what that dogma might entail and what it is commonly denoted as?

HP,

Middle knowledge definitely does NOT lead to fatalism. Can you explain where you got that idea? I'm confused.

MK was not designed to free us from thinking. ?? It simply is a system which considers that God's thoughts and God's ways are far above our own (Isaiah 55:8, 9), and that we tend to approach God's omniscience and His sovereignty without taking that into consideration.

You're assuming that if God predetermines what will happen - if He is sovereign - then man can not have a free will. But you're thinking like a human being. God is God. You're not.

There's no way to understand these systems by just looking at the surface. I posted two lengthy posts to describe middle knowledge as I understand it. What is it that I shared that you do not agree with?

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

I don't have the time or inclination to respond to most of the content of your posts ( there is something to be said for brevity ) , however when you identified Hunt as a Calvinist I had to say something . Dave Hunt is totally against what he things is Calvinism . His teachings also go against true Calvinism . The man is not accountable for a host of wrong-headed ideas which he puts forth as representing Calvinism . James White among others has countered his comments quite specifically , yet he persists in his same old statements . He has been proved wrong countless times and he just does not care . I like DH . I went to a weekend retreat with him as the guest speaker ( of course I did not agree with his talks ) . He is a personable man . He has been an honorable servant of the Lord for a long time -- but he is so very wrong on so much . It's a pity .

As for God not wanting to violate the "free-will " of people. I am sorry , but there is just too much biblical evidence to demolish that notion . Just take a walk through the OT for starters . The Lord softened the hearts of the Egyptians toward the Israelites . Joseph in an earlier time was given the favor of God . Joseph caused Potiphar to look kindly on him . The Lord gave Joseph favor in the sight of the chief jailer . The Pharaoh at that time was caused to look favorably on Joseph . The Lord did all these things and so much more ! The Lord changes hearts . He causes some hearts to melt and others to harden at His sovereign discretion .

Rippon,

Sorry, but I simply do not know how to present the Calvinistic system of omniscience, the simple foreknowledge or middle knowledge system without going into depth. It is philosophy. It is quite deep. I find it very hard to follow the logic involved, and I have a major in math.

Now I mentioned Hunt simply because he was the person chosen to present the Augustinian-Calvinist position on God's omniscience for that book. Nearly every Calvinist holds to such a system. (Can I say "every"?) Who out there talks on this system besides Hunt? White certainly does not, for example. Hunt's a philosopher, not a theologian.

Anyway, I would ask you what you thought of the MK system, but obviously you didn't read those posts. I would have thought that someone who held to election would be interested in a viewpoint that argues that election and free-will are not contradictory.

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: This is why I dislike critiquing the writings of men or women not posting on the list themselves. I can only have access to what is posted without having the distinct advantage of discussion to solve problems that exist in written communication.

FA: Actually, I am just interested with what you think about how the MK system handles the whole election-sovereignty vs. free-will debate.

HP: I have never had the opportunity to discuss or debate one with the view as Craig presents it. The greatest concern I have is when man, in his finite state and limited abilities, tries to make the Foreknowledge or Omnipotence of God understandable to the human mind. To a degree we are all guilty I suppose. Invariably we try to fit Omnipotent God into a box of our making. He will not fit. I personally like to take a simple Omniscient view, imbibing the notion that he foreknows all that will ever come to pass, and say simply that such foreknowledge does not necessitate the outcome of the free moral intents of man that God judges in a moral fashion. The simple fact the he punishes or praises man clearly indicates man as the responsible agent. I can know of certainty God can overrule our freedom, but have the assurance that when He does, or any force greater than my ability to resist so overpowers me that I honestly could not have done anything other than what I did under the very same set of circumstances, the subsequent action is not moral in nature and I will not be judged morally for it one way or another. I try and limit my attempts at the understanding of God and His foreknowledge to those with moral relevance.

FA: Also, what do you say to the argument that a simple foreknowledge system (the system I believe you are espousing) does not have God truly sovereign and in control of the universe, or that it does not allow for a God to truly predetermine (predestinate) what happens, but to only observe what happens? That is what Calvinists say about the simple foreknowledge position.

HP: The Calvinist puts up many paper ducks to shoot at. Again, I try and point out to the Calvinist that my explanation of His foreknowledge and predestination is limited to matters of morality that I can be certain of and that I believe God desires us to understand for obvious reasons. Such statements by a Calvinist are no more true that when they claim that if you believe in conditions to salvation you believe in salvation by works. Both notions are again merely paper ducks with no merit. One has to just keep setting the record straight and promoting the truth in spite of their unjustified statements.

FA: IOW, your system is much closer to an "open theism" system than is middle knowledge. In SF, God does not in any way predestinate who will trust in His Son, but only allows the opportunity. Since you are so opposed to OT, as am I, I am surprised that you object so strongly to MK when it is much stronger in opposition to OT than is your own system.

HP: I have yet to draw any hard and fast conclusions as to MK. I simply saw some suspect statements made that gave me an indication that Mr. Craig had a false view of morals. When I see something like that, it automatically throws up a red flag to me , and warns me to proceed very cautiously. Possibly with a one on one explanation, the issue could be totally cleared up. Aside from that, I will again proceed with caution.

I am as far from OT as light is from dark. The way I think, although at times clearly not the best presented to others, is at total antipodes with the false and unscriptural position of OT. Let there be no confusion there.

Yes God does predestinate in SF. Those things He predestinates that involve morals, that He will blame or praise men for, are predestinated without necessitating. He simply foreknows the free moral actions of men and predestines without violating that freedom. The Calvinist automatically believes that if it is predestined it can only be a matter of necessity. I believe that view to be in error as well.

FA: Now all this said, I am not trying to start a debate on middle knowledge (which is mainly misunderstood) or simple foreknowledge.

HP: I am not debating MK. I am simply citing possible areas of concern in the way they were presented, that should have thrown up a red flag to anyone morally cognizant. As I tried to indicate, the whole issue might have been just a lack of a full explanation in light of questions such as I have raised. How was Craig to know that I would be reading his statements. He would most likely have to revise the whole book just for my benefit.

I would with caution say that I was pleased for the most part in his explanations as I understood them, the cited objection( or misunderstanding?) noted.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: Middle knowledge definitely does NOT lead to fatalism. Can you explain where you got that idea? I'm confused.

HP: I never intended to insinuate, nor do I believe I stated that it did. What I tried to say was that there are some other issues that, if I was a betting man, would bet that both yourself and Craig believe in, that does gender fatalism and confusion. The false notion of original sin as taught by the majority of the church world today is the dogma I was alluding to.

FA: You're assuming that if God predetermines what will happen - if He is sovereign - then man can not have a free will. But you're thinking like a human being. God is God. You're not.

HP: I hold to no such false allusion. God is sovereign, but that does not preclude the notion that He allows freedom in moral agents in the arena of morality, i.e. in the areas that He is going to hold men accountable for either obedience or disobedience, by praise or blame.

FA: What is it that I shared that you do not agree with?

HP: As I stated, I find little disagreement overall so far aside from the objection I mentioned. That is not to say that I will find agreement in the future, or necessarily disagreement. One carefully examined point a time, in full understanding that whatever knowledge I possess today hopefully will be growing as I leave tomorrow. Knowledge and insight are never stagnate with me. I desire to leave this world growing in knowledge and understanding, and desire eternity to continue that process as I am sure it will.

I am sure to be disagreeing with some ideas that in the future I may be promoting. Such is the life of an ever growing finite vessel.

 

[Faith alone]

HP: This is why I dislike critiquing the writings of men or women not posting on the list themselves. I can only have access to what is posted without having the distinct advantage of discussion to solve problems that exist in written communication.

FA: I understand, and this particular subject is not one that is easy to deal with.

HP: I have never had the opportunity to discuss or debate one with the view as Craig presents it. The greatest concern I have is when man, in his finite state and limited abilities, tries to make the Foreknowledge or Omnipotence of God understandable to the human mind. To a degree we are all guilty I suppose. Invariably we try to fit Omnipotent God into a box of our making. He will not fit. I personally like to take a simple Omniscient view, imbibing the notion that he foreknows all that will ever come to pass, and say simply that such foreknowledge does not necessitate the outcome of the free moral intents of man that God judges in a moral fashion. The simple fact the he punishes or praises man clearly indicates man as the responsible agent. I can know of certainty God can overrule our freedom, but have the assurance that when He does, or any force greater than my ability to resist so overpowers me that I honestly could not have done anything other than what I did under the very same set of circumstances, the subsequent action is not moral in nature and I will not be judged morally for it one way or another. I try and limit my attempts at the understanding of God and His foreknowledge to those with moral relevance.

HP, I simply was confused about your reaction to middle knowledge. At first you were confusing it with opentheism, and it is farther from open theism than any of the other standard approaches taken.

But what I like about MK is that it does not assume that we can begin to understand how God thinks - again, more than the otehr three systems. Middle knowledge does not impinge upon man as a moral, responsible being. I merely described MK so that you would understand why I view election/free-will as I do. Here is what led to this discussion...

FA: God didn't merely choose us based on His foreknowledge that we would trust in Him, but he brought it about. It is also true that we chose to trust in Him freely. No conflict.

HP: Forgive me FA, but I see that as a contradiction. No offense, and you well may see far above what I can see, but if God is the one bringing it to pass, in that He determines the outcome, how can man possibly have a free will? Free will on the part of man demands the possibility of the man, not God, making an alternative choice. If God is ‘the cause,’ ‘bringing it to pass,’ man has no other option but to fall lock step with necessity as I see it. Help me out here. What am I not seeing that you see?

So I was merely explaining how it was not a contradiction. Without some explanation of MK how could I answer your question? I am surprised at your resistance to consider the possibilities of middle knowledge, but that does not bother me. I did want to correct your misunderstandings about this philosophy.

HP: The Calvinist puts up many paper ducks to shoot at. Again, I try and point out to the Calvinist that my explanation of His foreknowledge and predestination is limited to matters of morality that I can be certain of and that I believe God desires us to understand for obvious reasons. Such statements by a Calvinist are no more true that when they claim that if you believe in conditions to salvation you believe in salvation by works. Both notions are again merely paper ducks with no merit. One has to just keep setting the record straight and promoting the truth in spite of their unjustified statements.

FYI, William Lane Craig is Arminian - FWIW. But this system will work regardless of one's theological position. He describes in one of his books how this system of omniscience can be helpful for the Calvinist.

HP: I have yet to draw any hard and fast conclusions as to MK. I simply saw some suspect statements made that gave me an indication that Mr. Craig had a false view of morals. When I see something like that, it automatically throws up a red flag to me , and warns me to proceed very cautiously. Possibly with a one on one explanation, the issue could be totally cleared up. Aside from that, I will again proceed with caution.

Understood, and I hope my responses did not come across too critically. I thought that middle knowledge would be something that might interest you, and perhaps others on this board. (All I got from others was a critical comment regarding the length of the posts.) This took me a great investment of time in studying MK when I first heard about it. I have read two books on it and several articles regarding it. FYI, it is favorably accepted at both Dallas Theological Seminary and Talbot School of Theology - both conservative and higly respected insititutions. It is just pretty low on the radar of most theologians.

I am as far from OT as light is from dark. The way I think, although at times clearly not the best presented to others, is at total antipodes with the false and unscriptural position of OT. Let there be no confusion there.

I realize that you are. I admit I made those previous statements to stirr you up to consider what MK actually teaches. It is not some new off-the-wall philosophy. That book I suggested can be found in most Christian bookstores, and does an excellent comparison of those 4 philosophies.

Yes God does predestinate in SF. Those things He predestinates that involve morals, that He will blame or praise men for, are predestinated without necessitating. He simply foreknows the free moral actions of men and predestines without violating that freedom. The Calvinist automatically believes that if it is predestined it can only be a matter of necessity. I believe that view to be in error as well.

Right. But God does not predestinate who will come to faith in Christ in SF. And such "predestination" is not really predestination it is argued by its opponents - typically Reformed opponents. MK is a system which accepts fully the free will of man, yet in a system which encourages a consideration of a less limited view of God's omniscience and can be substantiated by scripture more readily (regarding election).

HP: I am not debating MK. I am simply citing possible areas of concern in the way they were presented, that should have thrown up a red flag to anyone morally cognizant. As I tried to indicate, the whole issue might have been just a lack of a full explanation in light of questions such as I have raised. How was Craig to know that I would be reading his statements. He would most likely have to revise the whole book just for my benefit.

I would with caution say that I was pleased for the most part in his explanations as I understood them, the cited objection( or misunderstanding?) noted.

HP,

No problem. Probably a new thread should be started if we really want to pursue this. Hopefully, you know recognize that I have not lightly said that I support a system which allows for both man's ability to choose as well as God's own choosing.

Thx,

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: But what I like about MK is that it does not assume that we can begin to understand how God thinks - again, more than the otehr three systems. Middle knowledge does not impinge upon man as a moral, responsible being. I merely described MK so that you would understand why I view election/free-will as I do. Here is what led to this discussion...

HP: Middle knowledge may ‘not impinge upon man as a moral, responsible being,’ but original sin does. What good does it do for us to fight a beast with one hand while feeding it treats with the other? That is what we do when we spend hours trying to enlighten one about MK on one hand while holding to original sin in the other.

If man is born is such a state as to be condemned from birth as a sinner, and being a sinner eliminates all possibility of contrary choice, what good is it to try and teach freedom out of one side of our mouths, while we destroy it with the other side of our mouths?

ALL discussions of freedom can be simply summed up as follows. If there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, freedom is impossible to conceive of. If there are two or more possibilities for any one antecedent, the matter is said to be one involving choice and freedom.

I ask you, does it do us any real good to accept MK if we destroy the freedom we propose to be establishing by the acceptance and support of the notion of Augustine, i.e. original sin?

 

[Faith alone]

HP: Middle knowledge may ‘not impinge upon man as a moral, responsible being,’ but original sin does. What good does it do for us to fight a beast with one hand while feeding it treats with the other? That is what we do when we spend hours trying to enlighten one about MK on one hand while holding to original sin in the other.

If man is born is such a state as to be condemned from birth as a sinner, and being a sinner eliminates all possibility of contrary choice, what good is it to try and teach freedom out of one side of our mouths, while we destroy it with the other side of our mouths?

ALL discussions of freedom can be simply summed up as follows. If there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, freedom is impossible to conceive of. If there are two or more possibilities for any one antecedent, the matter is said to be one involving choice and freedom.

I ask you, does it do us any real good to accept MK if we destroy the freedom we propose to be establishing by the acceptance and support of the notion of Augustine, i.e. original sin?

HP,

Again, you are misunderstanding what I mean. By not "impinging upon man as a moral, responsible being" I merely meant that MK does not force man to do certain things in an irresistible manner, such as with Reformed theology. It does hold him responsible to a moral God for his actions.

Now I'm not sure what you mean by the blue text above, but it appears that you are saying that because we are sinners we cannot but make bad choices. If this is what you mean, then I do not agree. As sinners, we are condemned by a righteous God, I agree. But sinners can do some good. They can choose to seek God, to trust in Christ.

Now the red text above is not something which Mk agrees with. That is reformed theology. There are the same choices available to people as in the SF system - precisely the same. The fact that God can predetermine what choices someone will make while not over-riding that person's choices does not mean that the choices were not legitimate.

You see there are truly two or more possibilities in a MK system. You are thinking from a human perspective, but "our thoughts are not His thoughts, neither are His ways our ways. For just as the heavens are high above the earth so are His thoughts higher than our thoughts and His ways than our ways." (Isaiah 55:8, 9)

And regarding original sin, it depends what your view is regarding original sin. If one has a view of original sin that we cannot ever choose to do right nor choose to seek God, than that is not my view of original sin.

Do you see any other flaws in this system?

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

HP: ALL discussions of freedom can be simply summed up as follows. If there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, freedom is impossible to conceive of. If there are two or more possibilities for any one antecedent, the matter is said to be one involving choice and freedom.

FA: Now the red text above is not something which Mk agrees with. That is reformed theology. There are the same choices available to people as in the SF system - precisely the same. The fact that God can predetermine what choices someone will make while not over-riding that person's choices does not mean that the choices were not legitimate.

HP: If MK does not agree with this basic understanding of freedom, MK cannot support freedom of the will. In the event that either you or I are simply misunderstanding each other, could you attempt to illustrate your disagreement so as to make it somewhat clearer? Could you site an illustration that would show how freedom can exist where there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent? I say that is simply impossible to conceive of, and would render any thought of freedom as absurd.

In theology we might have many misunderstandings or uncertainties, and certainly God’s ways are higher than our ways, but just the same we should never entertain absurdities. I trust that the point we have hit upon is a matter of a simple misunderstanding not the uncovering of an absurdity.

 

[Faith alone]

HP: If MK does not agree with this basic understanding of freedom, MK cannot support freedom of the will. In the event that either you or I are simply misunderstanding each other, could you attempt to illustrate your disagreement so as to make it somewhat clearer? Could you site an illustration that would show how freedom can exist where there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent? I say that is simply impossible to conceive of, and would render any thought of freedom as absurd.

In theology we might have many misunderstandings or uncertainties, and certainly God’s ways are higher than our ways, but just the same we should never entertain absurdities. I trust that the point we have hit upon is a matter of a simple misunderstanding not the uncovering of an absurdity.

HP,

Part of the problem here is that this subject is not really Christian theology, but Christian philosophy.

Hence the blue text above is not philosophically true in a MK system.

MK does not say that there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent. (Red text above.) Philosophers talk about "counterfactuals," not "possible consequences." There are perhaps not an unlimited number of worlds in which various different "consequents" exist, but it is more than one. (Philosophers disagree on whether or not the number is infinite. I wouldn't think it was such, but then, what do I know about such things?)

Now, when God told David when he was with his men at Keilah that "if" Saul came up to Keilah (which he did not in the world that God actualized) that the men of Keilah would indeed hand him over to them. But there were many other possible worlds in which a counterfactual existed such that they did not hand him over to Saul.

The Bible simply addresses the particular counterfactual which was related to David's choices up to that point.

Again, we are thinking like mere men. God could have brought about an almost infinite number of worlds into being. The fact that God knew precisely what world He would indeed predestine does not mean that the choices of individuals were ignored. Just think about it. If you had all the knowledge that God has available to Him, how could that not affect the decisions you made? And God, as a moral, loving, holy Being, would do likewise. All MK says, in contrast to a simple foreknowledge position, is that "yes," individuals have a free will and are morally responsible for their choices. Yet they also say that God is able to predetermine what will happen while allowing individuals freedom of choice. He is able to do so because of His tremendous knowledge of all the possible consequences.

As a specific example of this, consider that when God told Moses that Aaron could be his mouthpiece, He already knew that Aaron would head out to see Moses and would freely choose to join up with him in his quest to free the Israelites. God already knew Moses concerns that the people of Israel would not believe him and that he would refuse to do what God wanted if he had to be the spokesperson.

God also knew that Aaron would rarely, if ever, speak to the people or to Pharaoh. It was always Moses who did so. But Moses freely chose to do God's will, with certain stipulations, but God's will was accomplished anyway - without violating either Moses', Aaron's or the Israelites or Pharaoh's free will. That's a pretty clear example.

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: MK does not say that there is only one possible consequent for a given antecedent. (Red text above.) Philosophers talk about "counterfactuals," not "possible consequences." There are perhaps not an unlimited number of worlds in which various different "consequents" exist, but it is more than one. (Philosophers disagree on whether or not the number is infinite. I wouldn't think it was such, but then, what do I know about such things?)

HP: It does not matter if one is talking about possible consequents or counterfactuals, whether one is a philosopher or a farmer, whether there are numbers of worlds or if there is only one world actualized, if there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, no freedom or liberty exists. Freedom only exists where two or more possible consequents are possible for a given antecedent. These principles apply period, in any illustration and under any given circumstance

FA: Now, when God told David when he was with his men at Keilah that "if" Saul came up to Keilah (which he did not in the world that God actualized) that the men of Keilah would indeed hand him over to them. But there were many other possible worlds in which a counterfactual existed such that they did not hand him over to Saul.

HP: How does the world actualized here defeat or deter from the truth as I presented it? Just because something is said to be the outcome under a given circumstance in a given actualized situation, or world, in no way goes counter to the principle of freedom I laid out. If there was only one possible consequent in the illustration, freedom did not exist. If there were more than one possible consequent for the given antecedent, freedom did exist. Just because God had foreknowledge of the outcome in any given actualized world, does not necessarily necessitate the outcome. God has the ability to foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those of necessity.

It would appear to me that you seem to think that if God says a certain thing is going to come to pass, it must be a matter of necessity. (hence the notion that you seemed to portray that MK did not support the principle I drew to our attention concerning freedom and coercion) As in your illustration, God foreknew, in the world He actualized, that such and such would happen, but how does this necessitate the outcome? Cannot God foreknow matters of perfect choice and foreknow the outcome as an outcome determined by choice of the individuals involved? Sure there may only be one outcome that He foreknows in a given actualized world, but that one outcome may indeed be the results of moral beings making self-directed free choices as a result of their free willed intents, and not necessitated due to anything directly enacted by God or as a result of necessity.

FA: The Bible simply addresses the particular counterfactual which was related to David's choices up to that point.

Again, we are thinking like mere men.

HP: Sure we think like men. How else could we think? That is not to say that God has not implanted within man the ability to properly discern the truth in the matter of what constitute freedom and what constitutes necessity. I say that God directly intuits men with such ability to discern truth. Without which no truth could be established or ascertained. Mere men, due to God given ability, can indeed entertain and believe absolute knowledge.

FA: God could have brought about an almost infinite number of worlds into being. The fact that God knew precisely what world He would indeed predestine does not mean that the choices of individuals were ignored.

HP: Precisely. That truth also applies to the singular world he spoke of as well. Just because God only foreknows the choice that is indeed going to come to pass in a given actualized world, does it necessitate coercion to be the cause of such an actualized end, or that such an end is not in fat the result of a free will intent of the individuals involved consistent with the principles of freedom as I explained them.

FA: Just think about it. If you had all the knowledge that God has available to Him, how could that not affect the decisions you made? And God, as a moral, loving, holy Being, would do likewise.

HP: It is not only God that is Moral, but He created us as moral beings like unto Himself in this respect. If you create a world in which freedom as I explained the corresponding principles that apply, are not in vogue, morality is non-existent, virtue and vice are non-existent, and punishment or rewards for any resulting action unthinkable. God indeed can force anything He so desires into play, but He will never force such an end and then hold men accountable for the results. That is absurd to consider.

FA: All MK says, in contrast to a simple foreknowledge position, is that "yes," individuals have a free will and are morally responsible for their choices. ..... God already knew Moses concerns that the people of Israel would not believe him and that he would refuse to do what God wanted if he had to be the spokesperson.
God also knew that Aaron would rarely, if ever, speak to the people or to Pharaoh. It was always Moses who did so. But Moses freely chose to do God's will, with certain stipulations, but God's will was accomplished anyway - without violating either Moses', Aaron's or the Israelites or Pharaoh's free will. That's a pretty clear example

HP: I believe you are again refusing to realize that the outcome foreknew by God, was not the results of God determining that it of necessity would come to pass, but rather that God, Omniscient as He is, foreknew a matter of perfect choice. Because Moses action, as in your example, could be said in a sense to be God’s will, God’s will did not determine the outcome, nor was Moses the mere puppet carrying out the will of God, (as your characterization of the issue at hand reflects regardless of the lip service you give to Moses ‘freely’ choosing) but rather if in fact his was a moral decision by Moses, it was Moses, not God, that by the freely chosen intents of Moses himself that brought such intents and subsequent actions into play, not God.

What I hear you describing IMO (as I understand you so far) is nothing more that the false notion that abounds in the Calvinistic camp, that is coined so often in the following manner. “Man is free to do as he wills.” There is not a shred of freedom in such a statement, for man is bound by necessity, NOT freedom, to ‘do as one wills.’ One can ONLY ‘do as one wills.’ Freedom lies in the formation of the intent antecedent to the doing. Once one has formed an honest intent to do something, apart from changing ones intent or having some outside force necessitate that you do not carry out that intent, you can do no other. You are bound by necessity to carry out your intents. Freedom, if it exists at all, must lie in the formation of the intent itself, by man being the actual responsible cause of that intent, in order for anything to be said to be the product of freedom, hence responsible for that intent and a rightful and just subject of punishment or reward for the intent and the subsequent action.

Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Freedom to ‘do as one wills’ is no freedom at all. Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Strictly speaking, any freedom predicated of the doing, is nothing more than that which is necessitated by the relationship that exist between the will and the doing.

True freedom, the impetus for all morality, lies antecedent to any subsequent action. If any moraity is to be predicated of those intents and or subseqent actions, such intents driving any subsequent actions, must be the results of intents formed freely in the will apart from coercion of force of any kind from any source.

 

[Faith alone]

HP: It does not matter if one is talking about possible consequents or counterfactuals, whether one is a philosopher or a farmer, whether there are numbers of worlds or if there is only one world actualized, if there is only one possible consequent for any given antecedent, no freedom or liberty exists. Freedom only exists where two or more possible consequents are possible for a given antecedent. These principles apply period, in any illustration and under any given circumstance

FA: I disagree (red above). And in MK two or more possible consequents ARE genuinely possible. In simple foreknowledge, it can be argued that God is not really sovereign if such is the viewpoint. Who are we to tell God that they are not really possible?

For example, some have argued that inspiration of scripture is vague, and that it is not really inspiration, but either dictation or man's thoughts or else God is not fully determining preciesly what is being written orspoken. Here's what William Lane Craig has to say on that from a middle knowledge perspective. Very interesting stuff!

[FONT=arial,helvetica] [FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1] The so-called "grounding objection" is the most commonly raised misgiving which philosophers have to the doctrine of divine middle knowledge: how can counterfactuals of creaturely freedom be true when there is no ground of their truth? I hope to show that the theory of truth known as Truth-Maker Theory can help to shed considerable light on this objection, revealing just how difficult it is to formulate a compelling version of the objection. For it is far from evident that counterfactuals of creaturely freedom must have truth-makers or, if they must, that appropriate candidates for their truth-makers are not available. [/SIZE][/FONT] [/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica] 'Men Moved By The Holy Spirit Spoke From God' (2 Peter 1.21)
[FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1] Scriptural inspiration has traditionally been understood by Christian theologians to be plenary, verbal, and confluent. But how is the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture compatible with Scripture's being a truly divine-human product? How can one hold to the verbal inspiration of the whole of Scripture without lapsing into a dictation theory of inspiration which, in effect, extinguishes the human author? A theory of divine inspiration based upon God's middle knowledge is proposed, according to which God knew what the authors of Scripture would freely write when placed in certain circumstances. By arranging for the authors of Scripture to be in the appropriate circumstances, God can achieve a Scripture which is a product of human authors and also is His Word. Such a theory is compared and contrasted with similar views expressed by Lessius and Wolterstorff. [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
And here's what he says regarding your ideas of the impossibility you expressed:
[/FONT]

[FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]But the crucial assumption underlying this reasoning, namely, that the only histories of a world which are possible at any time are continuations of that history up to that time, is false, as shown by the illustration of time travel. Furthermore, if Adams were correct, fatalism would follow. The failure of Adams's argument has important implications for the Molinist doctrine of divine middle knowledge. [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica][FONT=arial,helvetica][SIZE=-1]

Newcomb's Paradox provides an illuminating non-theological illustration of the problem of divine foreknowledge and human freedom. We are to imagine a being with great predictive powers and to suppose we are confronted with two boxes, B1 and B2. B1 contains $1,000; B2 contains either $1,000,000 or nothing. We may choose either B2 alone or B1 and B2 together. If the being predicts that you choose both boxes, he does not put anything in B2; if he predicts that you choose B2 only, he puts $1,000,000 in B2. What should you choose? A proper construction of the pay-off matrix for the decision vindicates the one-box choice. If this is correct, then those who claim that God?s knowledge is counterfactually dependent on future contingents foreknown by Him are likewise vindicated. (FA: Middle knowledge) [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]

See his logic?
Just assume that there is middle knowledge (and God, being omniscient, has it. We do not, of course. He is God. We are not.). In addition to allowing God to make more informed decisions, it allows us to justify more effectively the condemnation of those who are under conditions with regard to salvation in which they are going to be damned without a"fair" opportunity. Now we can argue that God is just and that any onf us are saved is a tribute to God's graciousness. But it still rings a bit hollow until MK steps in and fleshes it out.

What MK argues is that God's knowledge so transcends human knowledge that God is able to know as creator how any exercise of human freedom will go. That is, God knows, for all he has created, how that person will behave in whatever circumstances he might be placed. God is able to know this, moreover, even though the person in question will, if God chooses to create him, enjoy complete freedom of choice.

HP: How does the world actualized here defeat or deter from the truth as I presented it? Just because something is said to be the outcome under a given circumstance in a given actualized situation, or world, in no way goes counter to the principle of freedom I laid out. If there was only one possible consequent in the illustration, freedom did not exist. If there were more than one possible consequent for the given antecedent, freedom did exist. (FA: I agree, but in MK, there is more than one possibility. Just because God knows preciesly how I will choose and arranges things so that I choose as He desires does not mean that thefree choice was not genuinely there.)

Just because God had foreknowledge of the outcome in any given actualized world, does not necessarily necessitate the outcome. God has the ability to foreknow matters of perfect choice as well as those of necessity.
(FA: Again, Mk agrees with this. The issue is that you do not allow God the kind of complete knowledge that He does indeed possess.)

It would appear to me that you seem to think that if God says a certain thing is going to come to pass, it must be a matter of necessity. (hence the notion that you seemed to portray that MK did not support the principle I drew to our attention concerning freedom and coercion) (FA: If God says something will come to pass, it certainly will come to pass. And God can anddoes predetermine what will happen as a sovereign and loving God. That does not prevent people from truly choosing.)

As in your illustration, God foreknew, in the world He actualized, that such and such would happen, but how does this necessitate the outcome?[/quote

Cannot God foreknow matters of perfect choice and foreknow the outcome as an outcome determined by choice of the individuals involved? Sure there may only be one outcome that He foreknows in a given actualized world, but that one outcome may indeed be the results of moral beings making self-directed free choices as a result of their free willed intents, and not necessitated due to anything directly enacted by God or as a result of necessity.

FA: Yes, he can and does. But He also predestines - He is sovereign. SF does not allow that.

HP: Sure we think like men. How else could we think? That is not to say that God has not implanted within man the ability to properly discern the truth in the matter of what constitute freedom and what constitutes necessity. I say that God directly intuits men with such ability to discern truth. Without which no truth could be established or ascertained. Mere men, due to God given ability, can indeed entertain and believe absolute knowledge.

FA: I agree with all this. The issue is whether or not when God says that He chooces who will trust in Him and that He hardened Pharaoh's heart, why change that to say that He knew that Pharaof would harden his heart and God permitted it? That makes God kinda wimpy, doesn't it?

End of part one...

 

[Faith alone]

part 2 of response

HP: Precisely. That truth also applies to the singular world he spoke of as well. Just because God only foreknows the choice that is indeed going to come to pass in a given actualized world, does it necessitate coercion to be the cause of such an actualized end, or that such an end is not in fat the result of a free will intent of the individuals involved consistent with the principles of freedom as I explained them.

FA: No. That's not the issue. I agree with this. The issue has to do with whether or not God is truly... God.

HP: It is not only God that is Moral, but He created us as moral beings like unto Himself in this respect. If you create a world in which freedom as I explained the corresponding principles that apply, are not in vogue, morality is non-existent, virtue and vice are non-existent, and punishment or rewards for any resulting action unthinkable. God indeed can force anything He so desires into play, but He will never force such an end and then hold men accountable for the results. That is absurd to consider.

FA: Agreed. Not a conflict.

HP: I believe you are again refusing to realize that the outcome foreknew by God, was not the results of God determining that it of necessity would come to pass, but rather that God, Omniscient as He is, foreknew a matter of perfect choice. Because Moses action, as in your example, could be said in a sense to be God’s will, God’s will did not determine the outcome, nor was Moses the mere puppet carrying out the will of God, (as your characterization of the issue at hand reflects regardless of the lip service you give to Moses ‘freely’ choosing) but rather if in fact his was a moral decision by Moses, it was Moses, not God, that by the freely chosen intents of Moses himself that brought such intents and subsequent actions into play, not God.

FA: No doubt God does know that, and much more. But the issue is that the Bible specifically says that He not only KNOW, He actually predestined it.

What I hear you describing IMO (as I understand you so far) is nothing more that the false notion that abounds in the Calvinistic camp, that is coined so often in the following manner. “Man is free to do as he wills.” There is not a shred of freedom in such a statement, for man is bound by necessity, NOT freedom, to ‘do as one wills.’ One can ONLY ‘do as one wills.’ Freedom lies in the formation of the intent antecedent to the doing. Once one has formed an honest intent to do something, apart from changing ones intent or having some outside force necessitate that you do not carry out that intent, you can do no other. You are bound by necessity to carry out your intents. Freedom, if it exists at all, must lie in the formation of the intent itself, by man being the actual responsible cause of that intent, in order for anything to be said to be the product of freedom, hence responsible for that intent and a rightful and just subject of punishment or reward for the intent and the subsequent action.

FA: Then you still are not understanding MK. One can do whatever he desires.

Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Freedom to ‘do as one wills’ is no freedom at all. Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Strictly speaking, any freedom predicated of the doing, is nothing more than that which is necessitated by the relationship that exist between the will and the doing.

True freedom, the impetus for all morality, lies antecedent to any subsequent action. If any moraity is to be predicated of those intents and or subseqent actions, such intents driving any subsequent actions, must be the results of intents formed freely in the will apart from coercion of force of any kind from anysource.

FA: But that is not what MK teaches. No disagreement. This is a straw man.

FA

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Historically, weren't Baptists considered Calvinists?

The historic London Confession is Calvinistic in doctrine. And isn't the SBC Baptist Faith & Message Calvinistic too, though perhaps a bit milder in form?

When did the Baptists become Arminian???

 

[Faith alone]

Historically, weren't Baptists considered Calvinists?

The historic London Confession is Calvinistic in doctrine. And isn't the SBC Baptist Faith & Message Calvinistic too, though perhaps a bit milder in form?

When did the Baptists become Arminian???

FriendofSpurgeon,

As I understand it, "yes" historically, originally, Baptist theologians were Calvinistic in alignment, though typically in a somewhat limited or mild manner. But since those early days a larger and larger contingent of Baptists have not been Calvinist in the sense of supporting the TULIP 100%. You could call them "moderate Calvinists" I suppose, since nearly all Baptists hold to the security of the believer in one form or another.

But the reality is that since a certain autonomy has been part of Baptists denominations from the beginning there has always been a large portion who were not Reformed.

Today more Baptists by far are not 5-pt. Calvinists than are. Now there have always been a certain continguent of Baptists who are Arminian as well - again due to the autonomy factor, though they are a small minority.

But one thing needs to be emphasized: just because a person is not a 5-pt. (or 4-pt.) Calvinist does not mean that he is Arminian. That greatly simplifies theology, and excludes most Baptists today.

Many of those who have even been the president of the SBC have not been Reformed. (Take for example Charles Stanley.) The present President of the SBC, Frank Page, has written a book about the errors of Reformed theology.

Jack Graham, the president of the SBC in 2003 said the following,

"So I believe and reject these aberrant theologies because of the character of God and because of the cross of Christ that Jesus died for all men and he will therefore bring unto himself all who will be saved. He said, if I will be lifted up I will draw all men unto myself. Now when he draws all men some will come in faith and some will come in unbelief. Remember when Jesus was facing the cross and he prayed over the city of Jerusalem and as he looked over the city and the lostness of people there, he wept over with copious tears, sobs and heaves are described in the Scripture when it says that Jesus wept over that city. And he cried out, 'O jerusalem jerusalem, how I would have gathered you to myself as a hen gathers her chicks. But you would not.' Not you 'could not' but you 'would not.'"

My comments:
John 6:44, "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." Not "will come" but "can come." Of course it is also true that they will not come, but this verse (and others like it, notably Romans 8:7-8).

"Unbelievers can believe or they can not believe. They can receive the gospel and be saved or they can reject the gospel and be condemned."

Graham is clearly not Reformed. The blue text above is certainly not reformed.

So while many Baptists are Reformed, and there are wide ranges of Calvinistsic beliefs among Baptists, most are not even 4-pt. Calvinists. I cannot speak for 100 years ago. The SBC was founded in 1845 by a Calvinist. But being a Baptist is a lot more than just about being or not being a Calvinist.

And it can also be said that one of the key Baptist theologies is regarding free will. Most Baptists hold to the free will of the individual in a sense very non-Reformed. In general, I find a lot of healthy balance in Baptist theology. (And please do not assume that not being Reformed means you are Arminian.)

And what would you say is the fundamental heart of Calvinism? It would either be the security of the believer or salvation by grace alone. Many Baptists would consider 5-pt Calvinism, or even 4-pointers for that matter, as a sort of "hard Calvinism." (I don't mean necessarily "hyper Calvinism.") And we can find the whole spectrum among Baptists.

FA

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

FA: One can do whatever he desires.

HP: Here you confuse the sensibilities with the will. Desire is a product of the emotions, the appetites, or lusts of the flesh. Desire is used to describe a wish or a mere request. The will and desire are not synonymous. There is no freedom necessarily in desire, for freedom lies in the will and is exercised to control and direct desire. Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Here Cain is told that regardless of his desires, he should will in accordance to the right, the good and the holy. He might have little to no control over his desires, but was to exercise freedom of his intents to direct his will in a righteous manner in spite of all desires.

In the case of Eve, her desire was to be ruled over by Adam. Ge 3:16 ¶ Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” No freedom here for Eve.

When one expresses the sentiment that “one can do whatever he desires,” one is not expressing sentiments of the will or the freedom directly associated with the wills capabilities, but rather is confusing the will with the sensibilities, the emotions, feelings, lusts of the flesh, etc. Desire is driven by necessity, not freedom. We are again to use the freedom utilized and directed by the will, to control ones desires.

Freedom lies in the will, not in the doing or in desire. The realtionship sustained between the will and the ‘doing’ is that of necessity not freedom. One can only do as one wills. Desires are a product of necessity, driven by the sensibilities or thought of ‘in a sense’ as a ‘product’ of the will. They are either necessitated by being a product of the emotions and feelings or they sustain to the will the relationship of necessity. In either case freedom is not predicable of ‘doing’ them.


Originally Posted by Heavenly pilgrim
Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Freedom to ‘do as one wills’ is no freedom at all. Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Strictly speaking, any freedom predicated of the doing, is nothing more than that which is necessitated by the relationship that exist between the will and the doing.

True freedom, the impetus for all morality, lies antecedent to any subsequent action. If any moraity is to be predicated of those intents and or subseqent actions, such intents driving any subsequent actions, must be the results of intents formed freely in the will apart from coercion of force of any kind from anysource.

FA: But that is not what MK teaches. No disagreement. This is a straw man.

HP: A starw man, as i understand it, is when one creates a description of another’s arguments that is simply not attested to by the facts. I did no such ting in what I said. I was simply putting forth the facts as I see them, and in no way did I associate them with any notion held or not held by another. No straw men here.

 

[Faith alone]

...One can do whatever he desires.

HP: Here you confuse the sensibilities with the will. Desire is a product of the emotions, the appetites, or lusts of the flesh. Desire is used to describe a wish or a mere request. The will and desire are not synonymous. There is no freedom necessarily in desire, for freedom lies in the will and is exercised to control and direct desire. Ge 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Here Cain is told that regardless of his desires, he should will in accordance to the right, the good and the holy. He might have little to no control over his desires, but was to exercise freedom of his intents to direct his will in a righteous manner in spite of all desires.

HP, the point is simply that you and I do not disagree here. Or perhaps I should say that simple foreknowledge and middle knowledge do not differ here.

What I meant is simply that a person is free to do whatever he wants or "wills," just as with Cain.

We're playing word games here. The issues you are selecting are mostly not places where SF and MK disagree. I'm truly sorry that I have not made the views of MK more clear. :tear:

<snip - a misunderstanding>

Originally Posted by Heavenly pilgrim
Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Freedom to ‘do as one wills’ is no freedom at all. Strictly speaking, morality is predicated of the intent alone. Strictly speaking, any freedom predicated of the doing, is nothing more than that which is necessitated by the relationship that exist between the will and the doing.

True freedom, the impetus for all morality, lies antecedent to any subsequent action. If any moraity is to be predicated of those intents and or subseqent actions, such intents driving any subsequent actions, must be the results of intents formed freely in the will apart from coercion of force of any kind from anysource.

HP: A starw man, as i understand it, is when one creates a description of another’s arguments that is simply not attested to by the facts. I did no such ting in what I said. I was simply putting forth the facts as I see them, and in no way did I associate them with any notion held or not held by another. No straw men here.

A straw man is when you erect certain arguments as if they represent another's position, then systematically shoot them down. And that is what you have done here. You have objected to some things which are not differences between SF or MK and you have thought, from what I've shared, that MK teaches things or assumes things that it does not. If you really want to shoot down MK, for whatever reason, you can find arguments of those who opposed Craig on the Inet.

I'm going to start a thread on the concept from Chosen But Free, by Norman Geisler... as soon as the person who borrowed it returns it. The book does not deal with MK, and he does not really hold to MK, but it should stir up some interesting discussion, and I'll share the precepts of MK there when it seems appropriate to do so. (He holds a position probably closer to your own, I imagine.)

I think we're wasting our time pursueing this rabbit trail on this thread. I view you as a friend on this board, and I don't want that to change. And I am getting frustrated with all the misunderstandings going on between us. Plus we are straying from the original intent of the thread.

My point was originally simply that "yes" one can be Baptist and not Calvinist. One can even hold to election fervently and yet not be Calvinist - because he believes that man has a free will as well. You do not agree that this is logically possible, but I think I have done a fairly decent job of explaining why I think it is logical, and you have clearly expressed why you disagree. Let's leave it at that.

I think I'll start a thread not on Geisler's book, but on that book on the 4 views of foreknowledge/omniscience. Better idea! I think I'll just try to summarize each position and then ask people to choose their poison and explain why. Could be fun.

FA