Hello dj,
I'm not so sure Craig endorses Moliniism. The one source I have that quotes his evaluation is from his book; "The Only Wise God", states Craig as saying; "Molinisim assumes that God must "wait "to know things are true. But God is eternal, and an eternal perspective knows things "before" they occur in time. God knows things in eternity, not in time".
It appears Molinism was a reaction against fatalism. What little I've read so far, it seems that this early view is the foundation for Open theism, or the Open View of God.
In Christ,
Bob
Is Open Theism Heresy?
Hello Steve,
Perhaps. But since you agree that an open theistic view of God doesn't necessarily represent either primitive or biblical data, what then are we to do with it? Hey, I'm no "heresy hunter" either. I've no theological axe to grind. However, this view seems to reduce God from the great "I AM" of scripture to "I Can Be" because God's knowlage is dependent on events
"actually" occuring. Another difficulty is that either God's knowlage is completely causal determining all events, or it is determined by these events. Open Theists/ Molinists/Paidion say that God's knowlage is determined by future free acts . This seems to sacrifice God as the ultimate Cause and determiner of all events.
This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign.
So I can understand why Mark would say "this is another god", because it is a shift from the nature of God revealed in scripture.
In Jesus,
Bob
Perhaps. But since you agree that an open theistic view of God doesn't necessarily represent either primitive or biblical data, what then are we to do with it? Hey, I'm no "heresy hunter" either. I've no theological axe to grind. However, this view seems to reduce God from the great "I AM" of scripture to "I Can Be" because God's knowlage is dependent on events
"actually" occuring. Another difficulty is that either God's knowlage is completely causal determining all events, or it is determined by these events. Open Theists/ Molinists/Paidion say that God's knowlage is determined by future free acts . This seems to sacrifice God as the ultimate Cause and determiner of all events.
This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign.
So I can understand why Mark would say "this is another god", because it is a shift from the nature of God revealed in scripture.
In Jesus,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Wikipedia's article on Molinism lists Craig as "probably its best known advocate today". Craig has a MP3 about it at http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/D ... dPart8.mp3 and his opposition to Open Theism is pretty well known I believe.Traveler wrote:I'm not so sure Craig endorses Moliniism. The one source I have that quotes his evaluation is from his book; "The Only Wise God", states Craig as saying; "Molinisim assumes that God must "wait "to know things are true. But God is eternal, and an eternal perspective knows things "before" they occur in time. God knows things in eternity, not in time".
D.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
dj
Thanks. I'll check it out. I may have mis-read what I have on the subject.
Nevertheless, Molinism appears to be the main influence on the Open View of God.
In Jesus,
Bob
Thanks. I'll check it out. I may have mis-read what I have on the subject.
Nevertheless, Molinism appears to be the main influence on the Open View of God.
In Jesus,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Bob,
You wrote:
"Open Theists/ Molinists/Paidion say that God's knowlage [sic] is determined by future free acts . This seems to sacrifice God as the ultimate Cause and determiner of all events. This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign. "
To say that God's knowledge is determined by the events is simply to say that the events have to exist before they can be known to exist. I am not sure I agree that this is so with God, but if it is, why is that a problem? A thing can not be known to exist if it doesn't exist, can it? If God (or anyone else) were to know that something exists, which actually doesn't exist, wouldn't that make His knowledge inaccurate? I'm just thinking out loud. I don't understand how God's foreknowledge works, and, unlike Dr. White, I do not agree that our theology must answer the question of how God knows things. This is not one of the things that God said He wants us to know (Jer.9:23-24).
To say that this belief sacrifices "God as the ultimate cause and determiner of all events" is merely to say that this sacrifices a precious tenet of Calvinism--one which the Bible nowhere affirms, and which is no tragedy to surrender. If God is the "cause" of all events, then He is also the cause (author) of man's sins, which are also events. This is what scripture, Arminians (and, strangely, most Calvinists) vehemently deny.
To say that, if God is not the ultimate cause of all events, then "This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign," is a mistake. Openness people do not say that God is a mere Spectator. They say that He intervenes sovereignly whenever He chooses to do so, and that He foreknows what kinds of interventions He intends to perform, in order to fulfill His sovereign purposes. Openness does, however, claim that God has no need and no interest in causing or foreknowing every free act that humans will perform. The majority of men's free acts have no bearing on the fulfillment of God's overall purpose.
For us to affirm God's Sovereignty is not to assert that He is the ultimate cause of every event. Sovereignty simply means that He has supreme authority. The word does not carry the implication of meticulous providence, except in the imagination of the Calvinists. Why must such a strange definition of "sovereignty" be imported into our theology? Augustine may demand it, but neither scripture nor lexicography demand it.
You wrote:
"Open Theists/ Molinists/Paidion say that God's knowlage [sic] is determined by future free acts . This seems to sacrifice God as the ultimate Cause and determiner of all events. This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign. "
To say that God's knowledge is determined by the events is simply to say that the events have to exist before they can be known to exist. I am not sure I agree that this is so with God, but if it is, why is that a problem? A thing can not be known to exist if it doesn't exist, can it? If God (or anyone else) were to know that something exists, which actually doesn't exist, wouldn't that make His knowledge inaccurate? I'm just thinking out loud. I don't understand how God's foreknowledge works, and, unlike Dr. White, I do not agree that our theology must answer the question of how God knows things. This is not one of the things that God said He wants us to know (Jer.9:23-24).
To say that this belief sacrifices "God as the ultimate cause and determiner of all events" is merely to say that this sacrifices a precious tenet of Calvinism--one which the Bible nowhere affirms, and which is no tragedy to surrender. If God is the "cause" of all events, then He is also the cause (author) of man's sins, which are also events. This is what scripture, Arminians (and, strangely, most Calvinists) vehemently deny.
To say that, if God is not the ultimate cause of all events, then "This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign," is a mistake. Openness people do not say that God is a mere Spectator. They say that He intervenes sovereignly whenever He chooses to do so, and that He foreknows what kinds of interventions He intends to perform, in order to fulfill His sovereign purposes. Openness does, however, claim that God has no need and no interest in causing or foreknowing every free act that humans will perform. The majority of men's free acts have no bearing on the fulfillment of God's overall purpose.
For us to affirm God's Sovereignty is not to assert that He is the ultimate cause of every event. Sovereignty simply means that He has supreme authority. The word does not carry the implication of meticulous providence, except in the imagination of the Calvinists. Why must such a strange definition of "sovereignty" be imported into our theology? Augustine may demand it, but neither scripture nor lexicography demand it.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
From what I understand about "Openness", God cannot know the future because it is unknowable. I'm sure someone will correct that statement if it is wrong. Craig believes and teaches that God is timeless without creation, temporal subsequent to creation, but knows the present truth of statements made about future events. That is the whole thing about "middle knowledge". God not only knows if it is true that HE will do something in the future, but knows the present truth of other's acts as well. It puts God in time, as Open Theists do, but also leaves Him with knowledge of the future. Matt 11:23 is an oft-used example of God knowing what someone would have done given different circumstances. A more traditional view of omniscience says that God knows future events because He is outside of time and see it all already. An "open" view says that God is basically blind about the future or might possibly know what He is going to do as long as His actions are not contingent on our own. Craig's view is that God not only knows what His future actions will be, but knows what we will do under certain conditions and, while not actually having present knowledge of those future events, can accurately predict them and intellectually know even though He doesn't experientially know...yet. In my understanding, Open Theism does away with God's future omniscience, while Craig and Molinists show that God doesn't have to be outside of time to know the future. It leaves omniscience intact, but explains how it is possible in a different way.Traveler wrote:Molinism appears to be the main influence on the Open View of God.
D.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Steve,
Quote: "To say that, if God is not the ultimate cause of all events, then "This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign," is a mistake".
This is where we differ. I do believe God is the Ultimate Cause. That is not to say God is responsible for my sinful choices. But I do differenciate between a primary cause and secondary ones.
God gave me "free will". I perform free actions. The power of freedom is caused by God, but the exercise of freedom is caused by me. I am the first cause of my own personal actions.
Where God becomes a "Spectator" of sorts, is by asserting that God cannot know anything as true unless it has actually occured. Therefore God must "wait" for the occurance of free acts before He can know they are true.
God is eternal, is He not? If He is , can't He know from eternity things before they occur in time? This Open view seems to make God's knowlage contingent upon what He knows and when He knew it, only when they actually occur and not before.
I am not convinced this view best describes the nature of God as revealed in scripture. In my prior posts to Paidion, I raised some questions from scripture why I doubt this view is valid. He has yet to answer them.
Peace in Him,
Bob
Quote: "To say that, if God is not the ultimate cause of all events, then "This makes God out to be a spectator of sorts. He is no longer Sovereign," is a mistake".
This is where we differ. I do believe God is the Ultimate Cause. That is not to say God is responsible for my sinful choices. But I do differenciate between a primary cause and secondary ones.
God gave me "free will". I perform free actions. The power of freedom is caused by God, but the exercise of freedom is caused by me. I am the first cause of my own personal actions.
Where God becomes a "Spectator" of sorts, is by asserting that God cannot know anything as true unless it has actually occured. Therefore God must "wait" for the occurance of free acts before He can know they are true.
God is eternal, is He not? If He is , can't He know from eternity things before they occur in time? This Open view seems to make God's knowlage contingent upon what He knows and when He knew it, only when they actually occur and not before.
I am not convinced this view best describes the nature of God as revealed in scripture. In my prior posts to Paidion, I raised some questions from scripture why I doubt this view is valid. He has yet to answer them.
Peace in Him,
Bob
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Hi Bob,
Yes, God is eternal. But this may mean only that He always existed and shall always continue to exist. The word "eternal" may mean nothing more than this. It does not tell us what He knows or does not know about the future. There are other theological terms for those ideas.
Yes, God is eternal. But this may mean only that He always existed and shall always continue to exist. The word "eternal" may mean nothing more than this. It does not tell us what He knows or does not know about the future. There are other theological terms for those ideas.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve
Open Theism does not "do away" with God's omniscience, past, present, or future. In general its proponents state that where God determines to act in particular ways in the future, for example, to send His Son again in the second coming, these future events cannot be altered by any other force, and are therefore settled.djeaton:
In my understanding, Open Theism does away with God's future omniscience
Other predicted events are not yet settled, even some of those spoken in prophecy.
For example, God Himself stated that He might declare that He would destroy a nation, but if they repented, He would change His mind and and not bring disaster upon it. On the other hand, He might declare that He would build up a nation, but if they did evil, not listening to His voice, He would change His mind and not do the good thing for it that He intended.
At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.
And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. Jeremiah 18:7-10 NRSV
I don't know how much clearer this could be said! God is not sitting in Heaven doing nothing except carrying out every event He decreed at the beginning of time. Rather He is interacting with His people. He will listen to His people and their appeals. He sometimes changes His mind, and acts accordingly. The future has not been determined in meticulous detail. That's why parts of the future, that is, the actions of free will agents, cannot be known in advance. For these free will agents have not yet chosen what they will do, and so there is nothing to know. Statements about the future choices of free will agents have no present truth value.
I have given logical arguments for this several times, and no one has yet succeeded in refuting it.
As for the idea that some posters have expressed --- that Open Theism is a development of Molinism, this is not the case. A great book in which some of you may be interested is:
Divine Foreknowledge: 4 Views
The Open Theist View is given by Gregory Boyd.
The Simple Foreknowledge View is given by David Hunt
The Middle Knowledge View (Molinism) is given by William Craig
The Augustinian-Calvinist View is given by Paul Helm
After each view is expressed, each of the other writers gives a response.
Some of the writers wax philosophical, and may be difficult to comprehend by those untrained in that discipline.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Paidion
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
Avatar --- Age 45
"Not one soul will ever be redeemed from hell but by being saved from his sins, from the evil in him." --- George MacDonald
-
_tartanarmy
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:26 pm
- Location: Australia
Ok, fine. Lets us see if we can catch on.Mark,
You wrote:
"You have another god... "
It may be that one has a different "god" than yours, but can you show that it is not the God of the Bible, and that yours is? That is the challenge. This fact does not appear to be something you have quite caught on to.
The following is Information freely available online, and if anyone wants the links and or references/citations, please contact me for source documentation.
First, let us consider "Libertarian Freewill" and Open Theism. Part 1
Open Theism states that God has granted to people free will and that in order for this free will to remain free, God cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be. They reason that if God knew a future choice of a person, then that person would not be truly free to choose anything different when the time comes to make that choice.
Therefore, they say, if God knows the future free will choices of people, then it means that free will doesn't really exist.
Furthermore, they hold to a view of free will known as libertarian free will. This is the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes.
In other words, the person is able to equal choose between any set of options.
By contrast, compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature and that there are constraints and influences upon his ability to choose.
In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition. In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature.
Libertarian free will
Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to our nature and desires
Compatibilist free will
Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires
In the compatibilism a person who is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20) and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) would not be able to choose God of his own free will because his free will doesn't have the capacity to contradict his nature and his nature is against God, dead, and incapable of choosing God.
Libertarianism would maintain that regardless of the nature of a person, his free will allows him to choose God in spite of being a slave to sin and not being able to understand spiritual things.
I believe that the singularly most important aspect of Open Theism is the libertarian view of free will and that the Bible, human sinfulness, human freedom, God's nature, and time itself are all viewed through its filter.
In fact, I further believe that the Bible is reinterpreted in light of this truth.
End of Part 1, Part 2 shall follow soon.
Mark
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason: