. Thanks for the resources too. I'll be sure to check them out.Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Thanks for clearing things up Rick. If I am going to spend time learning about a topic like this I want to make sure I am reading the most current material... my free time is already limited . Thanks for the resources too. I'll be sure to check them out.
. Thanks for the resources too. I'll be sure to check them out.-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Hi Steve Gregg,
Please accept my sincere apology for confusing you with Steve7150.
Cordially,
Dan
Please accept my sincere apology for confusing you with Steve7150.
Cordially,
Dan
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Hi RickC,
Thanks for the heads up on Boyd's change. I will try to examine both the article and video you mention. I know I indicated I planned to write to you at greater length by today, but it seems I ought to find out Boyd's latest views before I do, and that will take some time. I feel a little done in this week anyway, as it has shaped up into a difficult week. Again, thanks for your help, and patience, too.
Thanks for the heads up on Boyd's change. I will try to examine both the article and video you mention. I know I indicated I planned to write to you at greater length by today, but it seems I ought to find out Boyd's latest views before I do, and that will take some time. I feel a little done in this week anyway, as it has shaped up into a difficult week. Again, thanks for your help, and patience, too.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Hi RickC,
I guess I spent 45 minutes or more reading/scanning through the article co-authored by Boyd. It was a huge disappointment to me, largely because I generally found it inaccessible. For those geared toward expressing theology in mathematical/philosophical jargon, nearly all of which appears to me (based on what little I did understand) stated with more difficulty than it might have been, I see little value in it. Reading this stuff reminds me of a statement Dave Barry made about academia. I can’t remember his exact quote, but it was something like this: The sentence, “The child fell down and cried,” in the hands of the academic becomes, “Pre-adolescent downward tropism tends toward lacrimoneous responses, i.e. “weeping” ”. Barry noted that if you can keep up this language for a few hundred pages you will be given an academic grant.
I was also disappointed that there wasn’t a single scripture quote that I remember. Nor was there anything a layman like myself could get hold of. The entire approach seemed an attempt by them to re-formulate language so they could avoid “will” in favor of “might” regarding the future, and to dismiss their opponents, especially those "Ockhamists" who believed non-causal foreknowledge of the future was possible. The article seemed to have nothing to do with biblical or 1st century semantics at all, and no appeal was made to the Bible (which always makes me nervous). And like so many, they themselves had a priori assumptions they were unwilling to admit to, while accusing those of the “Settled Future View” of having them.
One thing of note: they continue to agree with Edwards that to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass. That much they admit to. And that is where I disagree, based on the Greek semantic use of progonoskw (to foreknow), which they avoid discussing.
Consequently, I just barely put up the youtube video you mentioned, and soon shut it off. So, I’m sorry I told you I would look at all this stuff. It’s just not worth my time at this point, and I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis who said that if you couldn’t explain your view to a common workman, you probably don't understand it as well as you think. Perhaps the video is more accessible, but I've just lost interest since attempting the article.
On the other hand I found Boyd’s website much more accessible when I looked at it a day or two ago. But I think I’ve said enough at this point in my prior comments for any reader to know why I object to 'old' Boyd. If someone can steer me to a few short answers Boyd gives about his new approach, which I guess is not so Molinist or whatever, maybe I’ll take a look. But if he's moved away from his “determinism” then as an open theist I guess he has to dismiss biblical prophecy, which he seems to do on his websitte, and with little concern for the lexical and semantic meaning of what “fulfilled” means when the N.T. talks about Old Testament Messianic prophecy being "fulfilled." For Boyd it is not future prophecy, as I would understand that term, but mere parallels that happen to occur between the N.T. narratives and the Old, when God (according to Boyd) is not Himslf orchestrating for the future. In other words, Boyd seems to treat the N.T. citation of O.T. prophecies in which God is not causing the fulfillment as no prophecy with fulfillment at all. These "parallels" seem to be viewed as little more than poetic touches, not Messianic fulfillments. To me that’s ridiculous, but probably he’s emphasizing that more these days.
Enough said. Just wanted to get back to you.
I guess I spent 45 minutes or more reading/scanning through the article co-authored by Boyd. It was a huge disappointment to me, largely because I generally found it inaccessible. For those geared toward expressing theology in mathematical/philosophical jargon, nearly all of which appears to me (based on what little I did understand) stated with more difficulty than it might have been, I see little value in it. Reading this stuff reminds me of a statement Dave Barry made about academia. I can’t remember his exact quote, but it was something like this: The sentence, “The child fell down and cried,” in the hands of the academic becomes, “Pre-adolescent downward tropism tends toward lacrimoneous responses, i.e. “weeping” ”. Barry noted that if you can keep up this language for a few hundred pages you will be given an academic grant.
I was also disappointed that there wasn’t a single scripture quote that I remember. Nor was there anything a layman like myself could get hold of. The entire approach seemed an attempt by them to re-formulate language so they could avoid “will” in favor of “might” regarding the future, and to dismiss their opponents, especially those "Ockhamists" who believed non-causal foreknowledge of the future was possible. The article seemed to have nothing to do with biblical or 1st century semantics at all, and no appeal was made to the Bible (which always makes me nervous). And like so many, they themselves had a priori assumptions they were unwilling to admit to, while accusing those of the “Settled Future View” of having them.
One thing of note: they continue to agree with Edwards that to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass. That much they admit to. And that is where I disagree, based on the Greek semantic use of progonoskw (to foreknow), which they avoid discussing.
Consequently, I just barely put up the youtube video you mentioned, and soon shut it off. So, I’m sorry I told you I would look at all this stuff. It’s just not worth my time at this point, and I’m reminded of C.S. Lewis who said that if you couldn’t explain your view to a common workman, you probably don't understand it as well as you think. Perhaps the video is more accessible, but I've just lost interest since attempting the article.
On the other hand I found Boyd’s website much more accessible when I looked at it a day or two ago. But I think I’ve said enough at this point in my prior comments for any reader to know why I object to 'old' Boyd. If someone can steer me to a few short answers Boyd gives about his new approach, which I guess is not so Molinist or whatever, maybe I’ll take a look. But if he's moved away from his “determinism” then as an open theist I guess he has to dismiss biblical prophecy, which he seems to do on his websitte, and with little concern for the lexical and semantic meaning of what “fulfilled” means when the N.T. talks about Old Testament Messianic prophecy being "fulfilled." For Boyd it is not future prophecy, as I would understand that term, but mere parallels that happen to occur between the N.T. narratives and the Old, when God (according to Boyd) is not Himslf orchestrating for the future. In other words, Boyd seems to treat the N.T. citation of O.T. prophecies in which God is not causing the fulfillment as no prophecy with fulfillment at all. These "parallels" seem to be viewed as little more than poetic touches, not Messianic fulfillments. To me that’s ridiculous, but probably he’s emphasizing that more these days.
Enough said. Just wanted to get back to you.
Last edited by DanielGracely on Wed Aug 04, 2010 9:00 am, edited 14 times in total.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Hi RickC,
I realized something this morning after getting some rest last night. Though my comments about Molinism refer to something in Boyd's position that may now be out of date, all the other comments (the great majority) I made which refer to his statements about God's determinism, unilateral control, etc. are all a response to writings I found on his current website. And so I would think my responses to these are relevant to his current position, assuming Boyd's website reflects what he presently thinks.
I realized something this morning after getting some rest last night. Though my comments about Molinism refer to something in Boyd's position that may now be out of date, all the other comments (the great majority) I made which refer to his statements about God's determinism, unilateral control, etc. are all a response to writings I found on his current website. And so I would think my responses to these are relevant to his current position, assuming Boyd's website reflects what he presently thinks.
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
The best way I can get to know God is through His word, and when I read scriptures which suggest that he "tests" us in order to find out how we will respond, this seems to tell me that the choices we make are not already fixed, and that in certain situations God does not know what the outcome will be for certain. For example: Gen 22:12
Gen 22:12 "And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
It appears to me from the natural reading of the above passage that God was testing Abraham to find out something about Abraham that he did not know for sure how he would respond. First of all, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then why say "for now I know that you fear God", which appears to imply that God "learned" something about Abraham that He did not know before testing him. And secondly, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then it doesn't appear to be much of a "test" if the outcome was already known to Him.
This is just one example of several Scriptures that make me ponder the open theism viewpoint and seriously at least consider it. I know this is pretty simplistic way of looking at this very complex question, but I am not sure how else I would understand Abraham's testing here.
Douglas
Gen 22:12 "And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
It appears to me from the natural reading of the above passage that God was testing Abraham to find out something about Abraham that he did not know for sure how he would respond. First of all, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then why say "for now I know that you fear God", which appears to imply that God "learned" something about Abraham that He did not know before testing him. And secondly, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then it doesn't appear to be much of a "test" if the outcome was already known to Him.
This is just one example of several Scriptures that make me ponder the open theism viewpoint and seriously at least consider it. I know this is pretty simplistic way of looking at this very complex question, but I am not sure how else I would understand Abraham's testing here.
Douglas
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
DanielGracely wrote:
Our old friend Paidion who used to post here and was a strong proponent for Open Theism argued rather eloquently on this point. He used the example that if God absolutely knows that John will raise his hand in class tomorrow at 1:30 pm, then John is obviously not free to do otherwise, regardless whether he feels free or not. In effect, God's knowing this in advance IS causing the future to happen, because God cannot be wrong. I still cannot find fault with this logic, which is why I have to have a very open mind about Open Theism. Seriously, if God foreknows everything perfectly then he has a mighty boring re-run to watch for the rest of eternity.
Paidion used to also make the point that there are things God can't do-- like make square circles or make 2 + 2 =5. Similarly, if the future is not knowable (because it isn't there yet) then it is not a slight of God's omniscience to say that He can't know it.
TK
Is there a difference between the statement "to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass" and the statement: "knowing in advance what a free will agent will do robs his free will because he is not free to do otherwise?"One thing of note: they continue to agree with Edwards that to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass. That much they admit to. And that is where I disagree, based on the Greek semantic use of progonoskw (to foreknow), which they avoid discussing.
Our old friend Paidion who used to post here and was a strong proponent for Open Theism argued rather eloquently on this point. He used the example that if God absolutely knows that John will raise his hand in class tomorrow at 1:30 pm, then John is obviously not free to do otherwise, regardless whether he feels free or not. In effect, God's knowing this in advance IS causing the future to happen, because God cannot be wrong. I still cannot find fault with this logic, which is why I have to have a very open mind about Open Theism. Seriously, if God foreknows everything perfectly then he has a mighty boring re-run to watch for the rest of eternity.
Paidion used to also make the point that there are things God can't do-- like make square circles or make 2 + 2 =5. Similarly, if the future is not knowable (because it isn't there yet) then it is not a slight of God's omniscience to say that He can't know it.
TK
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Is there a difference between the statement "to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass" and the statement: "knowing in advance what a free will agent will do robs his free will because he is not free to do otherwise?"
All i can say is that if the future is already settled then the only freewill we really have exists only in our minds. If events are already done we are in effect only going through the motions.
All i can say is that if the future is already settled then the only freewill we really have exists only in our minds. If events are already done we are in effect only going through the motions.
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
Gen 22:12 "And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”
It appears to me from the natural reading of the above passage that God was testing Abraham to find out something about Abraham that he did not know for sure how he would respond. First of all, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then why say "for now I know that you fear God", which appears to imply that God "learned" something about Abraham that He did not know before testing him. And secondly, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then it doesn't appear to be much of a "test" if the outcome was already known to Him.
There are dozens and dozens of verses like this in the OT like "Thus says the Lord, set your house in order, for you shall die , you shall not recover. Hezekiah then prayed earnestly and persuaded the Lord to add fifteen years to his life." 2 Kings 20.6
Why would scripture say God ADDED 15 years to Hezekiah's life if the length of Hezekiah's life was settled in advance? Note that God according to the plain reading, changed his mind. He altered the future in response to prayer. This is not an isolated type of scripture we find in the OT.
It appears to me from the natural reading of the above passage that God was testing Abraham to find out something about Abraham that he did not know for sure how he would respond. First of all, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then why say "for now I know that you fear God", which appears to imply that God "learned" something about Abraham that He did not know before testing him. And secondly, if God already knew how Abraham would respond, then it doesn't appear to be much of a "test" if the outcome was already known to Him.
There are dozens and dozens of verses like this in the OT like "Thus says the Lord, set your house in order, for you shall die , you shall not recover. Hezekiah then prayed earnestly and persuaded the Lord to add fifteen years to his life." 2 Kings 20.6
Why would scripture say God ADDED 15 years to Hezekiah's life if the length of Hezekiah's life was settled in advance? Note that God according to the plain reading, changed his mind. He altered the future in response to prayer. This is not an isolated type of scripture we find in the OT.
-
DanielGracely
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm
Re: Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?
TK writes:
BTW Gregg Cantelmo has written an article in which he points out that Open Theists hold to an interpretative center largely based on O.T. narrative, rather than the body of N.T. statements about the nature of God. And he claims that only 2+% of the passages that bear on the subject appear (from a natural reading) to support Open Theism rather than oppose it. I think this goes to my point about accepting the idea of non-determnative foreknowledge based on the lexical evidence, etc. which on balance would suggest it is the more likely biblical view.
Was wondering where the 2nd quote came from? Is if from your friend, Paidon? Just to be clear, your first quote, the quotation of me, is my description of what open theists say about themselves, based on the Boyd co-authored article which RickC suggested I read. So, no, I don't think there is any difference in the above two quotes, which are both made by those believing that foreknowledge would require determinism. Again, there remains the question about why Open Theists avoid discussing the 1st century extra-biblical semantic meaning of Gr. progonoskw (to foreknow), which has no meaning of determinism attached to it.Is there a difference between the statement "to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass" and the statement: "knowing in advance what a free will agent will do robs his free will because he is not free to do otherwise?"
BTW Gregg Cantelmo has written an article in which he points out that Open Theists hold to an interpretative center largely based on O.T. narrative, rather than the body of N.T. statements about the nature of God. And he claims that only 2+% of the passages that bear on the subject appear (from a natural reading) to support Open Theism rather than oppose it. I think this goes to my point about accepting the idea of non-determnative foreknowledge based on the lexical evidence, etc. which on balance would suggest it is the more likely biblical view.