Exhaustive Foreknowledge

[DaveXR650]

Since God is eternally existing and outside space and time, what we call past prsent and future history to us would be all now and present to him, so to Him already has and will happen period

That's one way of looking at things but just be aware that such a concept is what an Arminian will say is why when election is spoken of it is meant that the elect are those whom God sees and knows will choose to believe. Then to answer that a Calvinist has to say that God has more of a direct effect on who believes and who doesn't and you are back where you started with non-Calvinists arguing that in Calvinism you really don't have free will. I think that is Van's objection - that Calvinism always has to go in the direction of determinism more and more, no matter how much you argue the point, all the way until you make God the author of sin. (And if not the author of sin, at least the determining factor in the sense of deliberately withholding enough grace for a given person to be saved, verses someone else, who is saved.)

When I started looking at Molinism, it did seem to offer a way out logically, for there to be true free choices by men, and yet allow for God's sovereignty. While I'm not sure you need to go that far, especially if you are willing to believe that grace is resistible, as I do, it does offer a way for God to be truly sovereign and man to truly have free choices. And in looking into this, I discovered that indeed some Calvinist theologians had been looking into some of these concepts and they do have answers from a Calvinist perspective, but I really don't have those answers figured out as such.

And lastly, keep in mind that it may well be that most of early Christianity did not have such a developed view of how God's sovereignty worked and how time itself was perceived by men and by God. Frankly, there are scriptures that support all these views. So, if someone says they are going to just read a particular passage and try to see what God has to say in that passage, without filtering it through a theology, I applaud them, even though I don't think it's really possible to do that because our minds can't help but be affected by our theology.

 

[Van]

@Van. Your problem is that you don't understand your own view of your own theology and you would rather argue against what you wish people have said rather than what they said.
For example:

That my friend is pure Calvinism and is almost a direct quote from R.C. Sproul's book "Chosen by God".

This also is pure Calvinism with the possible exception that one could argue whether it is possible to be truly autonomous within a purview. Calvinism just says that free will is in operation to the extent God allows it.

That is exactly what I mean in that free will is limited and subject to God's sovereignty, yet still free. Calvinism 101.

Once again, if you are saying that Calvinism comes close to some of the principles of open theism in some areas I would have to agree. But to say it means that "God causes or allows things" is wrong because that is what Calvinism says. This is not a debatable point. Calvinism's view of God being sovereign is that God either causes or allows by permission everything that happens. What open theism says is that God, to the extent that he has allowed men free choices does not know what they are going to do and therefore the future is dynamic and uncharted yet in the specifics. But because God is the most powerful and knowledgeable actor in this his overall will certainly will be realized. Open theism, just like Calvinism, has various schools of thought within it and in some cases, like with Molinism, God knows every single free and possible action men might take, and every response that God may choose, and every contingent action or result of all those choices. That, to me, is somewhat like Calvinism, at least to the extent that God really does know everything that is knowable. The only difference being that some things are not possible to yet know because they will be the result of truly free choices not chosen yet and thus not existing yet. In other types of open theism God simply does not know what men will freely choose and is constantly learning and deciding what to do next, just like us, with the difference being God has more intelligence and wisdom.

Don't take my word for it Van. Just google "open theism" and read their page. Honestly, that is the level you are at and so am I. How else would I know to recommend it? But you are all over the place theologically. You are already half Calvinist based on what you say. You need to review what it is you actually believe first. And get a more realistic view of what you really know. I am telling you, there is a whole level of argument for Calvinistic compatibilism that I, at this point in my life am probably not going to try to study. And there are also higher level arguments against Calvinism that are a step above what you hear on this site. It is interesting indeed, but not very important in your practical Christian life.

You finally agree, Calvinism hold to open theism. It was about time! God causes or allows all things.

 

[DaveXR650]

You finally agree, Calvinism hold to open theism. It was about time! God causes or allows all things.

That God causes or allows all things is a central tenet of Calvinism. From this, Calvinists deduce that all that happens in reality is an unfolding of a minute plan that God has decreed with absolute certainty and in total detail. In open theism, I suppose you could still have God allowing or decreeing all things but the difference is that what God allows is also allowed to change the course of history and then God in some way responds to the choices made because he is dependent upon those choices for the unfolding of future reality.

So the difference is that in Calvinism a true free choice is allowed but it is still part of God's own plan. It was never a surprise to God and God does not wait to see the choice and then respond. So what then is going to be the obvious argument? Can you really say a choice in the Calvinist system is truly a free choice under those parameters? What I am trying to say, and I admit quite clumsily, is that there is a whole 'nother level of argument by Calvinist theologians on how it is indeed possible for a thing to be infallibly decreed to happen and yet real, true choices were made by the actors involved.

Once again, the difference is that in open theism the future depends upon the autonomous choices of individuals. In Calvinism, free choices are occurring but the future depends upon the decrees of God, not on the choices made. In open theism, the future has not been decided yet. It does not mean that God can't know he will win in an overall sense any given battle but the reason is that he is more powerful, not that he has set things to unfold as he wants.

What I can't seem to get through your head is that even in Calvinism you do have God in a sense doing things in a certain way because men did a certain thing. Joseph's brothers, Pharoah, Judas all show this as do the actions of the Israelites, the Ninevites and others. So in that sense there is some overlap. That's all.

 

[Van]

That God causes or allows all things is a central tenet of Calvinism. From this, Calvinists deduce that all that happens in reality is an unfolding of a minute plan that God has decreed with absolute certainty and in total detail. SNIP

Please do not attempt to redefine "allows" to mean "predestined." Once again, that makes God the author of sin, no matter how deep the word salad you dump on it.

Since God can intervene and alter any circumstance, God is NEVER dependent in any way for the "unfolding" of future reality. If God's sovereign plan is to pick a people based on His crediting their faith as righteousness, He remains in the overall driver's seat, while allowing the opportunity for the whole of humanity to "be reconciled" to God.

Last point, if an autonomous action by one or more people would thwart God's overall plan, He would not allow it. This is not rocket science.

 

[kyredneck]

Perhaps you will have better success getting through to him than others have.

I've become convinced @Van's CDS is the incurable kind.

But who knows? Lightning could strike.

 

[Van]

I've become convinced @Van's CDS is the incurable kind.

But who knows? Lightning could strike.

Note how Calvinists address the manufactured flaws of their opponents, rather than the topic. Clearly the sine qua non of fallacious argumentation.

Since God can intervene and alter any circumstance, God is NEVER dependent in any way for the "unfolding" of future reality. If God's sovereign plan is to pick a people based on His crediting their faith as righteousness, He remains in the overall driver's seat, while allowing the opportunity for the whole of humanity to "be reconciled" to God.
Last point, if an autonomous action by one or more people would thwart God's overall plan, He would not allow it. This is not rocket science.

 

[DaveXR650]

Please do not attempt to redefine "allows" to mean "predestined." Once again, that makes God the author of sin, no matter how deep the word salad you dump on it.

"Allows" doesn't mean "predestined". But why can't God, knowing someone is going to do something freely, and then upon foreseeing that action, determine that it fits into his overall plan and allow it to occur? Is it not also true that since this action fits into God's overall plan as he intends then if God approves and thus ordains the action along with the overall plan, it indeed was predestined and at the same time allowed and free. And in addition to all that, since it was part of God's declared plan it must occur (necessarily) and yet the action by the man was still truly free, as well as causing contingencies that God was dealing with at the same time, while still accomplishing his plan and not merely responding to the actions of men.
If you really take the time to think about it, you can begin to see how God can decree something, thus making it necessary that it happen, and yet still allowing for actions that were not directly caused by God - even while admitting that the results were indeed decreed by God and thus must happen. That is how a Calvinist can say that God determined that Adam would fall and yet God did not cause Adam to fall but still it was "necessary" that Adam fall. Accept this or reject it but the logic is there, even for an extreme Calvinist position (one that I do not hold).

Since God can intervene and alter any circumstance, God is NEVER dependent in any way for the "unfolding" of future reality.

Yes, I agree. But I am saying that is one of the big arguments against open theism of all types, even Molinism.

Last point, if an autonomous action by one or more people would thwart God's overall plan, He would not allow it. This is not rocket science.

Yes. I agree again. But remember, when you say that, and not so much you, but other non-Calvinists, you are undermining the absolute idea of free will that many of them insist on. Once again, I'm not saying you do that, but for the benefit of others reading this. It's not rocket science, but it strikes a blow against most types of open theism.

 

[DaveXR650]

Just a note on the above. Notice how I said "and then upon foreseeing that action". That is a good example of our deficiency as humans. I am forced to write that way to make it understandable to our minds. In reality, from God's point of view, it is wrong to say "and then" because that implies there was a previous time where God himself did not know this and had to learn it. But we are at a loss as to how to express such a thing.
This occurs in scripture too and we should be careful turning such statements into doctrines.

 

[Van]

"Allows" doesn't mean "predestined". But why can't God, knowing someone is going to do something freely, and then upon foreseeing that action, determine that it fits into his overall plan and allow it to occur? Is it not also true that since this action fits into God's overall plan as he intends then if God approves and thus ordains the action along with the overall plan, it indeed was predestined and at the same time allowed and free. And in addition to all that, since it was part of God's declared plan it must occur (necessarily) and yet the action by the man was still truly free, as well as causing contingencies that God was dealing with at the same time, while still accomplishing his plan and not merely responding to the actions of men.
If you really take the time to think about it, you can begin to see how God can decree something, thus making it necessary that it happen, and yet still allowing for actions that were not directly caused by God - even while admitting that the results were indeed decreed by God and thus must happen. That is how a Calvinist can say that God determined that Adam would fall and yet God did not cause Adam to fall but still it was "necessary" that Adam fall. Accept this or reject it but the logic is there, even for an extreme Calvinist position (one that I do not hold).

Yes, I agree. But I am saying that is one of the big arguments against open theism of all types, even Molinism.

Yes. I agree again. But remember, when you say that, and not so much you, but other non-Calvinists, you are undermining the absolute idea of free will that many of them insist on. Once again, I'm not saying you do that, but for the benefit of others reading this. It's not rocket science, but it strikes a blow against most types of open theism.

You Sir are asking me "Why not" as if we should base our beliefs on what is not specifically excluded, rather than the correct view, what is specifically included. Why could not God choose not to know whatever He chooses to allow by autonomous choice? You have no answer. It is a rabbit hole.

No one has advocated "Molinism" or even defined the term.

We are searching for truth, not the reason some views are inconsistent with truth. "Absolute Free Will" is an unbiblical concept.

 

[DaveXR650]

You Sir are asking me "Why not" as if we should base our beliefs on what is not specifically excluded, rather than the correct view, what is specifically included.

What I am saying is that since God has foreknowledge of events he can include a foreknown free will action of someone in his predestined plan and therefore you can have true predestination and also true free will.

Why could not God choose not to know whatever He chooses to allow by autonomous choice? You have no answer. It is a rabbit hole.

In order for someone to choose to consciously not know something they would have to know what it is that they are going to choose to not know. That is impossible. So I have no answer. Neither do I know if God can make an object so big that he can't move it. Going into an absurdity is not the way to present your case.

No one has advocated "Molinism" or even defined the term.

I know a little about it and it is becoming popular mainly because of Youtube videos by William Lane Craig. It comes from the concept of "middle knowledge" and it is a way to reconcile the difficulty with having true free will and also having God remain in sovereign control. Calvinism, at the level of the confessions just states that both God's sovereignty and man's free will are in operation. But free willers argue that that is not logically satisfying and will deny God's sovereignty at the expense of allowing man free will.

Molinism says basically that God indeed does allow man true free will choices and being real, autonomous actions not taken yet they cannot truly be foreknown because as of yet they do not exist. But God is infinitely wise and does know all possible choices, and all possible contingent actions, and all possible consequences of the actions and their contingent results. So, with that knowledge God can rule with true sovereignty and yet give man a true degree of free will which will even satisfy Arminians and free willers.
You might say "well, maybe God just is outside of time and can see what free choices will happen", to which the Molinist would reply "if the choice can be seen in any way as future then it must already exist somehow and therefore the Calvinists are right in that to see the future means the future is "set" and settled as how God sees it. To change it, as in allowing for a free willers definition of "being able to choose the alternative" would mean that God would then be wrong in the way he originally saw the future.

To me that is check mate for a free willer and Calvinism is right. Molinism is a possible way out and I bring it up for that reason and because you bring up open theism of which Molinism is one type. For those who don't accept Calvinism and believe that truly believing in a Calvinistic system must result ultimately in God being the author of sin I have found in looking into Molinism and further into Calvinism that there is some discussion about exactly how God can predestine all things and yet truly allow for free will (as the confessions state). It involves a lot of difficult concepts that I have just recently discovered.

I don't know if at this stage in my own life I have the time or intelligence to really flesh this all out. But I post what I know and if you would rather stay at a level of insult and offense, rather than trying to discuss the issues that of course is your choice. You are the one who says Calvinism must result in God being the author of man's sin.

False claims and diversionary questions. God not being the author of sin requires open theism. Deal with it, rather than change the subject!!!

You also said this so don't get offended when someone discusses what you brought up. In short, Calvinism does not require that God be the author of sin. And Calvinism is not open theism. Some of the concepts of Molinism do have some overlap with Calvinism at least in the use of terminology that is common to both. Look at my first point and like I said, many people will not accept the idea that there can be free will and at the same time predestination. Both Molinism and the Calvinists attempt to explain how these can both be true, although they use different methods.

 

[Van]

What I am saying is that since God has foreknowledge of events he can include a foreknown free will action of someone in his predestined plan and therefore you can have true predestination and also true free will.

Foreknowledge refers to knowledge acquired or formulated in the past, being utilized in the present. Thus your usage of the term does not reflect an understanding of the biblical usage.

In order for someone to choose to consciously not know something they would have to know what it is that they are going to choose to not know.

I have shown this view is nonsense. Yet it is repeated while ignoring the rebuttal. No need to continue, as discussion has come to an end.

Any discussion of Molinism is an off topic deflection. Open theism is defined by God either causes or allows all things.

Again, no need to address the "free willer" Not the view supposedly under discussion. We operate within the purview God allows.

Last point, I said Exhaustive Knowledge of the future, a view of some Calvinists, makes God the author of sin.

Goodbye

 

[DaveXR650]

Goodbye

Yes. You seem confused in your views to the point where further discussion would be of no use. Other posters had warned of this.

 

[JesusFan]

That's one way of looking at things but just be aware that such a concept is what an Arminian will say is why when election is spoken of it is meant that the elect are those whom God sees and knows will choose to believe. Then to answer that a Calvinist has to say that God has more of a direct effect on who believes and who doesn't and you are back where you started with non-Calvinists arguing that in Calvinism you really don't have free will. I think that is Van's objection - that Calvinism always has to go in the direction of determinism more and more, no matter how much you argue the point, all the way until you make God the author of sin. (And if not the author of sin, at least the determining factor in the sense of deliberately withholding enough grace for a given person to be saved, verses someone else, who is saved.)

When I started looking at Molinism, it did seem to offer a way out logically, for there to be true free choices by men, and yet allow for God's sovereignty. While I'm not sure you need to go that far, especially if you are willing to believe that grace is resistible, as I do, it does offer a way for God to be truly sovereign and man to truly have free choices. And in looking into this, I discovered that indeed some Calvinist theologians had been looking into some of these concepts and they do have answers from a Calvinist perspective, but I really don't have those answers figured out as such.

And lastly, keep in mind that it may well be that most of early Christianity did not have such a developed view of how God's sovereignty worked and how time itself was perceived by men and by God. Frankly, there are scriptures that support all these views. So, if someone says they are going to just read a particular passage and try to see what God has to say in that passage, without filtering it through a theology, I applaud them, even though I don't think it's really possible to do that because our minds can't help but be affected by our theology.

You Sir are asking me "Why not" as if we should base our beliefs on what is not specifically excluded, rather than the correct view, what is specifically included. Why could not God choose not to know whatever He chooses to allow by autonomous choice? You have no answer. It is a rabbit hole.

No one has advocated "Molinism" or even defined the term.

We are searching for truth, not the reason some views are inconsistent with truth. "Absolute Free Will" is an unbiblical concept.

There are even things God cannot do when it violates His very Nature and divine attributes, as God cannot choose to know the future as we do, in strictly linear time

 

[JesusFan]

What I am saying is that since God has foreknowledge of events he can include a foreknown free will action of someone in his predestined plan and therefore you can have true predestination and also true free will.

In order for someone to choose to consciously not know something they would have to know what it is that they are going to choose to not know. That is impossible. So I have no answer. Neither do I know if God can make an object so big that he can't move it. Going into an absurdity is not the way to present your case.

I know a little about it and it is becoming popular mainly because of Youtube videos by William Lane Craig. It comes from the concept of "middle knowledge" and it is a way to reconcile the difficulty with having true free will and also having God remain in sovereign control. Calvinism, at the level of the confessions just states that both God's sovereignty and man's free will are in operation. But free willers argue that that is not logically satisfying and will deny God's sovereignty at the expense of allowing man free will.

Molinism says basically that God indeed does allow man true free will choices and being real, autonomous actions not taken yet they cannot truly be foreknown because as of yet they do not exist. But God is infinitely wise and does know all possible choices, and all possible contingent actions, and all possible consequences of the actions and their contingent results. So, with that knowledge God can rule with true sovereignty and yet give man a true degree of free will which will even satisfy Arminians and free willers.
You might say "well, maybe God just is outside of time and can see what free choices will happen", to which the Molinist would reply "if the choice can be seen in any way as future then it must already exist somehow and therefore the Calvinists are right in that to see the future means the future is "set" and settled as how God sees it. To change it, as in allowing for a free willers definition of "being able to choose the alternative" would mean that God would then be wrong in the way he originally saw the future.

To me that is check mate for a free willer and Calvinism is right. Molinism is a possible way out and I bring it up for that reason and because you bring up open theism of which Molinism is one type. For those who don't accept Calvinism and believe that truly believing in a Calvinistic system must result ultimately in God being the author of sin I have found in looking into Molinism and further into Calvinism that there is some discussion about exactly how God can predestine all things and yet truly allow for free will (as the confessions state). It involves a lot of difficult concepts that I have just recently discovered.

I don't know if at this stage in my own life I have the time or intelligence to really flesh this all out. But I post what I know and if you would rather stay at a level of insult and offense, rather than trying to discuss the issues that of course is your choice. You are the one who says Calvinism must result in God being the author of man's sin.

You also said this so don't get offended when someone discusses what you brought up. In short, Calvinism does not require that God be the author of sin. And Calvinism is not open theism. Some of the concepts of Molinism do have some overlap with Calvinism at least in the use of terminology that is common to both. Look at my first point and like I said, many people will not accept the idea that there can be free will and at the same time predestination. Both Molinism and the Calvinists attempt to explain how these can both be true, although they use different methods.

And one MUST take into account that only God has full free will, as mankind true free will died in the Fall, as now bound ans restrained by our sin natures itself

 

[JesusFan]

Yes. You seem confused in your views to the point where further discussion would be of no use. Other posters had warned of this.

"taint so"

 

[Van]

Open theism is defined by the doctrine of "God either causes or allows all things."

When we see "pas" (all) translated as "all things" we should recognize that translation choice is poor and misleading. A better choice is "all these things" pointing to the context rather than away from it.

Foreknowledge refers (in scripture) to knowledge formulated or acquired in the past being utilized in the present.
Foreknowledge never refers to God's supposed knowledge of the future. That view is unbiblical nonsense. God knows that part of the future He has predetermined, such as what He has declared will occur. He does not predict the future. Crystal Ball Theology is false theology.

Acts of the Apostles 2:23 says Christ was put to death by "the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" (NASB). God's plan from before the foundation of the world was for Christ to die as the Lamb of God, thus when Christ was put to death, God was implementing in the present His plan which was established in the past.

 

[Van]

There are even things God cannot do when it violates His very Nature and divine attributes, as God cannot choose to know the future as we do, in strictly linear time

Please address that God can do as He pleases, and for you to say God cannot do this or that because of your mistaken unbiblical claims is utter nonsense.

 

[Dave G]

"Open Theism is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will."

Open Theism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[Dave G]

In the above, I see an immediate contradiction:

Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future

God, though omnicient, does not know what we will freely do in the future?
He's either ominicient, or He isn't.

 

[Van]

In the above, I see an immediate contradiction:

God, though omnicient, does not know what we will freely do in the future?
He's either ominicient, or He isn't.

On and on, one false claim after another. Infinite Omniscience is the false doctrine of those who have not studied what scripture teaches. Inherit Omniscience is the biblical doctrine consistent with all scripture.

God said, "Now I know" indicating He did not know beforehand. The false doctrine folks say this verse does not mean what it says.
Scripture says Jesus knew all, yet did not know when He would return. Thus to be "all knowing" is to be "all knowing" about whatever is contextually in view, not everything imaginable, the unstudied view of false teachers.