- Dec 10, 2003
- 23,896
- 9,861
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
Classical Arminians believe in divine foreknowledge but not that God controls everything. So they are two logically separate things.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If as you say God controls everything - why would God even have to 'foresee' anything (as in the future) ?
I would accept that as a summary of Open Theism (and an implication of the last point is that God is in time, and He does not actually know what we will do until we do it).
On this Open Theist view, God is obviously very limited compared to God as seen by Calvinism (according to which God foresees everything and controls everything) and even compared to God as seen by classical Arminianism (according to which God at least foresees everything).
The situation with Calvinism is actually much like Open Theism in reverse. Open Theism rescues libertarian free will by limiting God's omniscience and omnipotence. Calvinism rescues God's full omniscience and omnipotence by limiting free will (only allowing compatibilist free will, not libertarian).
I'll leave it for another thread to discuss which view is the most Biblical.
Yes, perhaps the uncertainty would snowball but the issue is whether the uncertainties are important to the plans of God. In the example that I used previously, God does not know what I will eat for lunch tomorrow (because I have not decided). And that uncertainty could conceivably snowball into more uncertainties, but does it matter to God's plans for the world? I doubt it would. So why should God decree from eternity past what I should eat for lunch tomorrow?The uncertainty would snowball when you think about my reaction to your reaction to his reaction and so forth.
Much of what we do is in reaction to other people's choices. If those are uncertain, our reactions will be even more uncertain, and the uncertainty would build up.
OT believes God decrees only certain important things but leaves much to humans to decide
I don't see OT as trying to rescue libertarian freewill
In the example that I used previously, God does not know what I will eat for lunch tomorrow (because I have not decided). And that uncertainty could conceivably snowball into more uncertainties, but does it matter to God's plans for the world? I doubt it would.
Of course God is able to, and he does! What else are those prophecies in the bible? E.g. the virgin birth. Did God just hope that a virgin would give birth to Jesus? I don't believe Boyd would suggest that. Hence I suspect you misunderstand OT.My understanding of Open Theism, from reading people like Boyd, is that God is unable to decree anything, i.e. that He can only hope that things work out.
Why conceive of something so serious? Must food always be either good or bad? In the vast majority of time, all foods are good. So a more common example would be a a choice between an egg sandwich or a cup of noodles. Would my choice have any impact on God's plan for the world? And I think the bulk of our daily choices are like that.If God does not know whether you will eat the chicken that has gone off, then He does not know whether a friend will rush you to hospital with food poisoning, nor whether that friend will then run over and kill somebody on the way there.
What else are those prophecies in the bible?
Why conceive of something so serious?
Well, yes. Things can only come to pass as God foresaw them. Otherwise God's foreknowledge would have been wrong.
This was actually why Open Theism was invented -- the realisation that you can't have both foreknowledge and libertarian free will.
1 Samuel 23:7-13
7 And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand; for he is shut in, by entering into a town that hath gates and bars. 8 And Saul called all the people together to war, to go down to Keilah, to besiege David and his men. 9 And David knew that Saul secretly practised mischief against him; and he said to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. 10 Then said David, O LORD God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah, to destroy the city for my sake. 11 Will the men of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O LORD God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And the LORD said, He will come down. 12 Then said David, Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the LORD said, They will deliver thee up. 13 Then David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth.
Here we see David asking God a couple of questions.
David: will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard?
God: He will come down.
David: Will the men of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul?
God: They will deliver thee up.
Sounds good, right? Looks like God foreknew what would happen, right?
Kind of makes it look like the pagan Platonian/Augustine view might be correct after all, right?
Except NONE of these things happened. And they did NOT happen because David packed up and departed out of Keilah.
This does NOT show God was wrong, it shows that David changed that which would have happened if he had of stayed in Keilah.
So then if David by his actions changed what God said would happen does that not show that OUR actions can also change what God said would happen?
Does it not show that OUR repentance, prayer etc. can and does change Gods mind?
Does it not show that if we ask God about things that will happen that WE can actually CHANGE the outcome?
In other word what God foresaw was ONE possibility or as Boyd might say He is God of the possibles.
That passage might be used as a defence of Middle Knowledge, but it does not support Open Theism.
That passage might be used as a defence of Middle Knowledge, but it does not support Open Theism.
straw man
You said if God foreknows something than that which he foreknows must happen. I showed you via scripture that you were wrong as what God said would happen NEVER came about because David packed up and left the area
and it does support open theism
You're misrepresenting 1 Samuel 23:7-13. David is asking for advice about whether staying in Keilah is safe. That doesn't mean that God didn't foresee what David would do.
God expresses His advice in terms of a certain counterfactual: if David stays in Keilah, then the men of Keilah will definitely surrender him to Saul.
Well, no. It supports God's knowledge of counterfactuals (i.e. "Middle Knowledge"), that's all.
The passage does not support Open Theism, which teaches that God does not know what people like David and the men of Keilah will choose to do. If Open Theism was true, God would say something like "the men of Keilah might do that, but I can't be sure until it happens." You're misrepresenting what Open Theism teaches.
No you are adding to what the scripture actually says. God never said if you stay in keilah then the men of keilah will surrender you to Saul.
what it show to me is that God knows all possible outcomes
what it show to me is that God knows all possible outcomes and from what I have read of open theism that is the stance they take.
Like I said, that's more of a Middle Knowledge thing than an Open Theism thing (it's certain knowledge of a counterfactual).
That's implicit in the question: David is asking God if it is safe to stay. Once getting a "no," he leaves.
Obviously, David knows that, when he leaves, the men can no longer surrender him to Saul.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?