• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views

Hmm...

If he does not think that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God, then the implication is that God is subject to the time in his creation (i.e. he is in the past, relative to events yet to happen, and cannot know with certainty all events in the future partly because of that). This undermines God's aseity and certainly means that Boyd's definition of God's omniscience is more like "a lot of knowledge", rather than "all knowledge".
Yep. I completely agree.
 
Dealing with Open Theism is the "bane" of the "Helm" position. Personally, I don't believe any of these 4 positions are exclusively opposed to one another. I have argued for years that the Truth lies between.....

Boyd is a reason man. I disagree with him on many things. Especially passivism. However, he states his view clearly and systematically. I'm not an Open Theist but I do believe that "shared view" of time within Arminianism/Calvinism is very flawed. There is no absence of time with God. God is Eternal. Which "never ending time".

I look forward to a discussion on the views in the book.
You may have heard me say that Open Theism is more logically consistent than even Arminianism. But it, like the others, still posits a less than omniscient, omnipotent God.
 
You may have heard me say that Open Theism is more logically consistent than even Arminianism. But it, like the others, still posits a less than omniscient, omnipotent God.
This is a good point. We may have Doctrines we favor; but what does our favoring them do to other important Doctrines? You mention that favoring Open Theism diminishes the Doctrines of God's Omnipotence and Omniscience. Provisionism does this, it diminishes Grace. Hyper Calvinism diminishes Faith. I could keep on going. We do not count the cost...

When we favor a Doctrine too much, it's like taking other Doctrines and binding them; and laying them on an Alter, while raising your knife in the air. If God doesn't stop us before we strike, we've gone too far in sacrificing the LORD'S Doctrines...

Let's believe everything God has for us to believe; the sweet and the bitter...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You may have heard me say that Open Theism is more logically consistent than even Arminianism. But it, like the others, still posits a less than omniscient, omnipotent God.

I agree. There really is only one single view that establishes endless infinite knowledge. It is unending time. Open Theism fails to consider this along with all the others. I enjoy talking about time. Maybe we can have a good discussion on the subject.
 
Hmm...

If he does not think that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God, then the implication is that God is subject to the time in his creation (i.e. he is in the past, relative to events yet to happen, and cannot know with certainty all events in the future partly because of that). This undermines God's aseity and certainly means that Boyd's definition of God's omniscience is more like "a lot of knowledge", rather than "all knowledge".

The absence of time is chaos. God is order. There is no scenario, even with God, wherein cause and effect exists concurrently. Cause creates effect. Which is sequence and order. Which is time.
 
The absence of time is chaos. God is order. There is no scenario, even with God, wherein cause and effect exists concurrently. Cause creates effect. Which is sequence and order. Which is time.
Good bit of assumption here. Absence of time is absence of time. Not chaos. But God is orderly —not order; there is an important difference. Cause and effect do not need time sequence, in God's economy, just logical sequence. You see, as surely as you can say they do, I can say they don't. You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong. But I can show many reasons to think you are wrong.
 
Good bit of assumption here. Absence of time is absence of time. Not chaos.

Define time. Time is nothing more than sequence. If you admit sequence, then I can't see how you can deny time. Anything less than a endless sequence of events is problematic.

But God is orderly —not order; there is an important difference.

Like God isn't love but loves?

Cause and effect do not need time sequence, in God's economy, just logical sequence

There is no difference between time sequence and logical sequence. Can you explain the difference instead of just claiming there is a difference.

We judge time based upon sequence. All things do not exist in an "instant" or "singularity". Not even God. He is too vast for such constraints. The men of this book have not considered this. I know, I been studying and debating this topic for a long time. It has fascinated me almost my entire life.

You see, as surely as you can say they do, I can say they don't. You can't prove me wrong, and I can't prove you wrong. But I can show many reasons to think you are wrong.

I can do much more. I have the Scriptures and theology to prove it. I'm open to discussing this in much more detailed fashion. As I have already stated

1. God causes. God exists and operates within the effects of His originating cause.
2. Effect never coexists with cause.
3. In terms of knowledge, saying that EVERYTHING exists in a singular action or thought "quantifies/limits the knowledge of God. Every how vast that information might be, it is constrained by the idea of every "thing" already existing. Thusly, all of the statements mentioned limit God's knowledge

I don't want to discuss at the expense of the OP. If I'm causing this topic to get "off track", I will start a thread.

A Scripture to consider....

Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
 
The absence of time is chaos. God is order. There is no scenario, even with God, wherein cause and effect exists concurrently. Cause creates effect. Which is sequence and order. Which is time.
Sequence and order and NOT the same thing as time.

If someone give you an ornament, in which is an ordered sequence of differently coloured segments, you receive the whole ornament at a point in time, with its already existing order and sequence. In a similar way, the Lord could have created the whole universe, including it's ordered events and time sequences, all at once. He chose not to, but he could have.

Time is created by God and it is subject to Him, not vice versa.
 
Sequence and order and NOT the same thing as time.

If someone give you an ornament, in which is an ordered sequence of differently coloured segments, you receive the whole ornament at a point in time, with its already existing order and sequence. In a similar way, the Lord could have created the whole universe, including it's ordered events and time sequences, all at once. He chose not to, but he could have.

Time is created by God and it is subject to Him, not vice versa.

I don't see how you argument denies the existence of time?

You admit that the Lord choose not to do this in the Universe "but he could have". That is not an appeal to information. That is supposition based upon inaction and lack of information. Imagination.

If someone creates an ornament with varying colors, the creation process requires a beginning and an end. Forget the inbetweens for a moment. A begin and an end. The end is never the begin. The beginning is never the end.

Time. Sequence. Do you remember when Jesus declared Himself to be the Great Alpha and Omega? You have Eternal beginning and end in the nature of Jesus Christ. The great I AM.
 
I don't see how you argument denies the existence of time?
LOL! That's good, because, of course, I don't deny the existence of time. :rolleyes:

You admit that the Lord choose not to do this in the Universe "but he could have". That is not an appeal to information. That is supposition based upon inaction and lack of information. Imagination.
God is omnipotent. Do you not believe that?

If someone creates an ornament with varying colors, the creation process requires a beginning and an end. Forget the inbetweens for a moment. A begin and an end. The end is never the begin. The beginning is never the end.
If you mean that we (humans) require time to make ornaments, then your comment is irrelevant. We're not talking about what people can do.

In any case, although, for us, the creation of order requires time, they are distinct (order and time).

Time. Sequence. Do you remember when Jesus declared Himself to be the Great Alpha and Omega? You have Eternal beginning and end in the nature of Jesus Christ. The great I AM.
I AM implies aseity, not subjection to time!
 
LOL! That's good, because, of course, I don't deny the existence of time. :rolleyes:

Within the context of my comments you are.

God is omnipotent. Do you not believe that?

Certianly. However, the teaching of Omnipotence is not a teaching that declares that God does everything. His Character prevents Him from lying. Remember the Scripture that says God CAN NOT lie....

Your version of omnipotence is lacking.

If you mean that we (humans) require time to make ornaments, then your comment is irrelevant. We're not talking about what people can do.

In any case, although, for us, the creation of order requires time, they are distinct (order and time).

God requires sequence to create things. He is BOTH beginning and end. Duration is Eternal.

I AM implies aseity, not subjection to time!

Provide one single Scriptures that says that. You can't. It doesn't exists. I've been debating this for a very long time. I've been searching for it for a very long time. It doesn't exist.

Men claim time doesn't exist simply because it fits their narrative. Eternal is not the absence of time. It is the endless duration of time.

"I AM" is empathic statement of character. It is statement of quality and essence. It is not something "external" to God. Which is what you're saying.
 
Within the context of my comments you are.
No, I'm not. Your turn.

Certianly. However, the teaching of Omnipotence is not a teaching that declares that God does everything. His Character prevents Him from lying. Remember the Scripture that says God CAN NOT lie....

Your version of omnipotence is lacking.
Lying is not a thing in itself; rather, it is a corruption of being truthful. If God were able to lie, he would not be omnipotent (because lying is a corrupted, imperfect version of the truth).

It's your understanding that is lacking...


God requires sequence to create things. He is BOTH beginning and end. Duration is Eternal.
This is a non-sequitur.

Provide one single Scriptures that says that. You can't. It doesn't exists. I've been debating this for a very long time. I've been searching for it for a very long time. It doesn't exist.
It's encapsulated in the meaning of "I AM".

Men claim time doesn't exist simply because it fits their narrative. Eternal is not the absence of time. It is the endless duration of time.
Time is affected by things like velocity and gravity. Do you believe that God is subject to these as well?
"I AM" is empathic statement of character. It is statement of quality and essence. It is not something "external" to God. Which is what you're saying.
"I AM" means that God is eternal, never changes and is not subject to time.
 
No, I'm not. Your turn.

In the context of God, you are. Which is the subject.

Lying is not a thing in itself; rather, it is a corruption of being truthful. If God were able to lie, he would not be omnipotent (because lying is a corrupted, imperfect version of the truth).

It's your understanding that is lacking...

Satan is a "LIAR". "Lying" is a "thing". It is part of his character and substance.

This is a non-sequitur.

This is a non-sequitur. I can deny logic just as well as you can.

It's encapsulated in the meaning of "I AM".

Aseity is a doctrine and such teach does not preclude what I said from being part of the Aseity.

Time is affected by things like velocity and gravity. Do you believe that God is subject to these as well?

Now we are getting somewhere. No. Time is fundamental, sequence. Duration is an aspect of time. Not time itself. The relativity of velocity and gravity are nothing more than theories. I ascribe to a modified version of "steady/constant state".

"I AM" means that God is eternal, never changes and is not subject to time.

I ask that you read what I write. I stated that Eternal is a never ending time. Not the absense of time.

Clear example.

Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
 
Sequence and order and NOT the same thing as time.

If someone give you an ornament, in which is an ordered sequence of differently coloured segments, you receive the whole ornament at a point in time, with its already existing order and sequence. In a similar way, the Lord could have created the whole universe, including it's ordered events and time sequences, all at once. He chose not to, but he could have.

Time is created by God and it is subject to Him, not vice versa.
Actually, we don't know that he chose not to. All we know is what WE can see, and what we think from our temporal POV.
 
Define time. Time is nothing more than sequence. If you admit sequence, then I can't see how you can deny time. Anything less than a endless sequence of events is problematic.
Time is indeed sequential. That does not mean that causal sequence is time-dependent, except in the mind of time-dependent person.

In fact, rather ironically, it seems to me, modern physics is proposing that very thing.
Like God isn't love but loves?
Really? I hope you didn't mean that spitefully or sarcastically. Love is an attribute of God. Time is not.
There is no difference between time sequence and logical sequence. Can you explain the difference instead of just claiming there is a difference.
God said, "Let there be light". And there was light. Sequentially, God is the cause there, and the light the effect. We don't know what sort of essence that light had, whether even "immediately as" the light was created, time was related. We only know that time became related, as it was Evening and Morning, the first day.

Yet we know that as for time sequence, the sun showed up much later. It may be that time began 'when' God separated the light from the darkness. What do we really know, except that God (and only God) can speak anything into fact.
We judge time based upon sequence. All things do not exist in an "instant" or "singularity". Not even God. He is too vast for such constraints. The men of this book have not considered this. I know, I been studying and debating this topic for a long time. It has fascinated me almost my entire life.



I can do much more. I have the Scriptures and theology to prove it. I'm open to discussing this in much more detailed fashion. As I have already stated

1. God causes. God exists and operates within the effects of His originating cause.
2. Effect never coexists with cause.
3. In terms of knowledge, saying that EVERYTHING exists in a singular action or thought "quantifies/limits the knowledge of God. Every how vast that information might be, it is constrained by the idea of every "thing" already existing. Thusly, all of the statements mentioned limit God's knowledge

I don't want to discuss at the expense of the OP. If I'm causing this topic to get "off track", I will start a thread.

A Scripture to consider....

Eph 3:21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.
Good idea. I would delight in such a thread.
 
Actually, we don't know that he chose not to. All we know is what WE can see, and what we think from our temporal POV.
Well, the Lord told us that he created the heavens and the earth in six days, each with a morning and an evening. Many have wondered why it took him so long, but I'm sure that he had extremely good reasons!
 
Well, the Lord told us that he created the heavens and the earth in six days, each with a morning and an evening. Many have wondered why it took him so long, but I'm sure that he had extremely good reasons!
@praise_yeshua suggests he will start a thread on this. I'm looking forward to it.
 
I see that we have some discussion since I last posted. I've set aside tomorrow morning to run errands, read, write, etc. I hope to write the next segment during that time.
 
Responding to Open Theism (pt2a)

Repeat Disclaimer
: I won't be giving the entirety of each person's argument. If you want the full presentation of the other person's argument, then buy the book. However, I will try to summarize the authors as best I can, in as brief a space as possible. Then I will quote certain portions and respond. For the sake of not being overly redundant, this will be the last time this particular disclaimer is mentioned.

Basic Introduction and Summary
If you missed the first part, since this is part 2, then go back to post #9 to see part one.

Having considered Boyd's introduction, the discussion now turns to his first major point of three in his presentation of Open Theism. Boyd gives us the most succinct statement of what this section entails. "In part one, I shall demonstrate that while the Bible certainly celebrates God's foreknowledge and control of the future, it does not warrant the conclusion that the future is exhaustively controlled or foreknown as settled by God." (p. 14) In this section, Boyd considers several passages of scripture that point to God's control and knowledge. He argues that these passages demonstrate particular control and knowledge, but they do not demonstrate exhaustive control and knowledge. In this section, his main critique is that the traditional view endorses a hasty generalization fallacy.

The hasty generalization fallacy is when one takes particulars and generalizes the whole on the basis of the particulars. A few examples can be given to spell out this fallacy. (1) A husband and wife may be arguing. The husband has struggled with picking up after himself. He still has the bad habit of leaving dirty clothes on the floor. Early in the marriage, he consistently failed; but now he usually picks up after himself; but at times he lapses into old habits. After one of these times, his wife states, "You always forget to pick up your dirty laundry." This is a statement born more from frustration than reality. She has generalized from past instances and one present instance that he "always" forgets. However, this is simply not true. Her husband has made significant progress, and now his momentary lapse definitely does not indicate that he "always" forgets.
(2) Politics is overly ripe with flagrant fallacies, and one easy example comes from border control. One side is for legal immigration and against illegal immigration. The other side is for open borders. The side for open borders criticizes the other as being against immigration and points out how this nation (US) was founded by immigrants. This is a rather obvious example of a hasty generalization. Just because one is against illegal immigration does not mean that he is against all immigration. This is also a straw man fallacy, since one side misconstrues the other side's position to make it easier to criticize. (3) While this is not an example, one can also call this fallacy a non-sequitur fallacy. The conclusion of "all" or "always" is not justified by the reference to certain particulars. Even if something happens a lot of the time, the conclusion that it always happens is not justified. It is important to spell out this particular fallacy, for this is utterly central to Boyd's position and critique. (4) A final example comes from my own interaction concerning Acts 4 and the predestination verses there. A poster critiqued my view by pointing out that the passage doesn't argue for God being in control of everything. Unfortunately for the other poster, that was not my argument. But this is yet another example of how the hasty generalization works. Had it been my argument, then the other poster would have been correct.

In general, I think that Boyd is fundamentally wrong, and I will spell out why later. However, it is very important to see what he argues before evaluating. Further, if one is ignorant of the verses involved and how positions are argued from the Calvinistic side, then I can see how one could come to the conclusion that Boyd is very persuasive. I can easily see his argument persuading the general Christian population.

Considering a Few of the Particulars of Boy's Argument in Part One
One must move past summaries and overall impressions to dealing with the particulars of Boyd's presentation. Boyd quotes from Isaiah 46:9-11 and Isaiah 48:3-5. God is critiquing idolatry and stating that He is God and no other, who declares the end from the beginning. Boyd states, "The Bible unequivocally celebrates God's foreknowledge and control of the future." (p. 14) After considering the above passages and a few others he also states, "These passages clearly exalt God as the sovereign Lord of history. This scriptural motif reassures believers that however out of control the world may seem, the Lord is steering history toward his desired end. His overall purposes for creation cannot fail, and his eternal purpose for our lives is secure." (p. 15) He agrees that these verses point out that "much of the future is settled ahead of time and is therefore known by God as such." (p. 15) However, he goes on to argue that this does not mean that all of the future is settled ahead of time and known as such.

Boyd's argument concerning Isaiah 46:9-11 and 48:3-5 is that (1) it nowhere says that it concerns all things. (2) The context points out a more particular focus. (p. 16-17). The rest of the section concerns the (1) coherence of having a partly open future (p. 17-18). (2) Foreknown individuals (Josiah, Cyrus, Peter, and Judas) do not constitute an argument that the future is exhaustively settled. (19-23)

It is crucial to note the role of libertarian freedom as it governs Boyd's interpretation of the various passages. (p. 18, 21, 22) In particular, Boyd argues that Jesus possessed predictive knowledge (like a weather man) regarding Peter's character and his denial of Jesus (p. 20-21). Special note can be given to his understanding of Acts 2:23 and 4:27-28 at the end of the section. I will take the time and space to quote it, for I will later critique it heavily.

"In my view, this is how we should understand the wicked activity of all the individuals who played foreordained roles in the death of Jesus: for example, the rulers who had Jesus crucified (Acts 2:23, 4:27-28), the soldier who pierced his side (Jn 19:34-37) and the soldier who gave Jesus vinegar (Jn 19:28-29). As seen in its references to Judas, Scripture never suggests that these specific individuals were destined or foreknown to carry out these wicked deeds. It only teaches that these specific deeds were destined and foreknown to take place. Saying that someone carried out a predestined or foreknown wicked event is much different from saying that someone was predestined or foreknown to carry out a wicked event. Scripture affirms the former but not the latter. These passages only require us to believe that, when he so chooses, God can narrow the parameters within which certain people act out their freely chosen character." (p. 22)

Part 2b will entail my critique of the above summary and quote.
 
Ugh. Lots of things happening yesterday, didn't get a good sleep (bad dreams and insomnia), feeling like garbage today. Sorry, I want to write, but ugh.
 
Back
Top