And given the billions of people alive, all making free choices, God is constantly being caught off-guard. It would seem to be difficult for Him to protect anyone.Yes, it gave a reasonable explanation for some of the confusing passages in the Bible, but it did so at a great cost IMO. It gives humans the ability to make choices with full assurance that God cannot know with certainty what they will choose, but it does this by limiting God.
Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
I see what you mean, Matt. However, that would be true only if it were absolutely certain that God would not change His mind about those things. But you're probably right. It would seem, for example, that the second coming of Christ is one of those things about which God will not change His mind.I do, however, believe that some things can be predicted with absolute certainty by God in the sense that He himself may take on the active role of making it happen and/or He himself maintains the right to override human will if he sees fit.
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
Rev 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega,the first and the last,the beginning and the end."I believe this scripture is a clear statement,that God is not in time,but rather time is in God.He created time,He is sovereign over time,He allows time to exist through Him.So He would have absolute knowledge of the past,present & future.
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
That is quite a leap from your Rev 22:13 quote to its being "a clear statement,that God is not in time..." If God is not in time, then for God, there IS no beginning and end.Daniel you wrote:Rev 22:13 "I am the Alpha and the Omega,the first and the last,the beginning and the end."I believe this scripture is a clear statement,that God is not in time,but rather time is in God.He created time,He is sovereign over time,He allows time to exist through Him.So He would have absolute knowledge of the past,present & future.
And if "time is in God", then He couldn't have created it! His creation was external, wasn't it? He didn't create something within Himself, did He?
Time isn't some substance which needs to be created. As I see it, "time" is simply a measurement of the passing of events, analgous to "space" which is a measurement of the distance between objects. When God created the universe, time and space were automatically there. Indeed, time began even before the creation of the universe, as I mention in the next paragraph.
The idea that God exists outside of time, and sees all events simultaneously (though there couldn't even be a "simultaneously" outside of time) is a quite modern idea. The classic idea is that time extends infinitely into the past and the future, and that God exists within this temporal infinity. My belief is that time had an actual beginning, this beginning marked by the first event, the begetting of the Son of God.
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
I do not see Rev 22:13 as a statement that God is in time.God does not say I am there at the beginning & the end,He says "I am.The way these words are positioned clearly implies that God is sovereign over time.By saying that time is in God,I am saying that it exists through Him & when He no longer wills it to exist,time will cease to exist.Also,it seems logical that for a being to be truly eternal,the being would have to be sovereign over time.How else would a being not have a beginning or an end?
- darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
I believe that according to astrophysicists time is something uniquely experienced within our created universe, and that it didn't exist prior to the big bang any more than the other aspects of our reality which is fixed in 4 dimensions -- or at least in a fifth (or more) dimension, time may not be experienced in the same way.Time isn't some substance which needs to be created. As I see it, "time" is simply a measurement of the passing of events, analgous to "space" which is a measurement of the distance between objects. When God created the universe, time and space were automatically there. Indeed, time began even before the creation of the universe
Consider a line in a two dimension world. In a one dimension world, that line is only experienced as a dot. The second dimension includes seeing that dot as the line it always was.
That's (sort of) the subject of a book I've been intending to read for a number of years -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
If the "big bang" marked the beginning of time, then the statement "Time did not exist before the big bang" is meaningless. "Before" is a temporal word. There WAS no "before".I believe that according to astrophysicists time is something uniquely experienced within our created universe, and that it didn't exist prior to the big bang...
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
- darinhouston
- Posts: 3114
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
I believe that is semantics. Time of some sort exists in some sense beyond our dimensional reality, but it's experienced differently (or not at all). We need some way to refer to it in our reality and "before" is as good as we've got.Paidion wrote:If the "big bang" marked the beginning of time, then the statement "Time did not exist before the big bang" is meaningless. "Before" is a temporal word. There WAS no "before".I believe that according to astrophysicists time is something uniquely experienced within our created universe, and that it didn't exist prior to the big bang...
Consider a line on a page -- time exists to us before and after we make the line. But the line doesn't ever experience time within its one dimensional reality, and so (if it were senscient) it can't refer or conceive of "before" or "after" or anything else temporal but time still co-exists in our greater dimensional existence. We can only communicate within our reality. Likewise, someone or something (God and/or other spiritual beings) exist(ed) before the singularity became our 4 dimensional reality. It experienced and still experiences time in a very different way than we do so I can't imagine calling it time is all that helpful but it's all we've got. We already know that cause and effect are not absolutes in the quantum realm. We can't even fathom how something might exist and not exist at the same time because we are bound in our reality. But, this whole debate about foreknowledge and predeterminism likely has no signficance to those with a completely spiritual reality.
Re: Is Molinism the natural progression of classic Arminianism?
I believe God, as Trinity, existed. God created. Time was part of that creation. But God is incarnational in character. He doesn't exist outside of time. He entered into time. There is no realm in which the future is already a reality. It does not exist yet. God is bringing about the future through His work in the world.
I think this means I am in slightly more agreement with Paidion (though not complete agreement) than some of you.
I think this means I am in slightly more agreement with Paidion (though not complete agreement) than some of you.