Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?

[DanielGracely]

Hi Rick,

For some reason I completely missed the part of your comment dealing with Boyd's take on Rom.8: 28-30, i.e., his claim that there is an implication of God foreknowing only one group (not in any individual way but rather abstractly so), etc. I just read it now, and hope eventually to reply to it. When I replied last night I somehow had missed this whole section of your comment.

In the meantime I wanted to get back to you on a resource re: "to foreknow". I think if you google "Thomas Edgar" and "foreknowledge" you will come to the one article which, above any other article or book on the subject of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Open Theism, I would steer a person to if I could only steer them to one. Edgar's real focus in the article is replying to the Calvinist (not the Open Theist) position, though at one point he makes an observation about Open Theism's view of "to foreknow." But the reason I guide you there is because of Edgar's arguments about verbs not changing meaning depending on the subject. Edgar also points out what has been called "the root-word fallacy," in which one supposes that foreknow's meaning is found in the root, "to know". I also believe Edgar addresses a particular Calvinist claim that Boyd seems to echo, namely, that the "know" part of the word "foreknow" should be defined as "to love"; thus, to fore-love.

Hope to write later, perhaps even today (though not sure). Take care,

[RickC]

Daniel, et al -

I found and read The Meaning of PROGINWSKW ("Foreknowledge") by Thomas R. Edgar.
Thanks for the tip to the link, Daniel.

I'm not sure where to proceed, as several sub-topics have arisen. Earlier I asked if we should start a new thread: No one replied. But that's okay,

I asked if anyone "gets" the notes from Boyd's video: No one replied. That's okay too,
(I guess...)... ..... .......

I'll reply to you soon, Daniel. On the meaning of proginwskw I can say a little now. I'd agree with you and Edgar that it literally meaning "to forelove" or "love beforehand" is incorrect. Boyd's saying foreknowing-is-foreloving isn't accurate from a purely lexical POV (I see what you're saying on that). 'Not sure if this needs to be pursued any further. What say ye?

Edgar wrote some things that I didn't think were accurate about Openness (or OFV). But at the time he wrote, he may have been accurate in his assessments: OFV has evolved. He didn't quote or cite in footnotes much from 'Open Theists' (I didn't read all footnotes).

In any event, I noticed similarities with stuff Edgar said in critique of Opennesss and questions you've raised to me. My plan is to get back to the Boyd quote you asked about and go from there. I'm thinking my reply might clear things up.

It might get kinda technical but I'll give it a shot!

Thanks!

P.S. As an Openness person (it looks like I'm that now, prolly) - God knew Homer might eat - or not eat - any number of different kinds of sandwiches today. The future is OPEN!!! (imo).

[DanielGracely]

Hi Rick,

I appreciate your efforts at keeping this rather lengthy dialog cordial.

However, despite your making the consersavion easier for me to engage in, I don't think I want to get into the endless litany of possible arguments re: Open Theists, which would mean endless back and forth exchanges, though I'm willing to keep this up for maybe about another week. As I point out in my book (http://www.xCalvinist.com; chapter two), any position is capable of maintaining consistency of argument by changing word symbols to mean something other than what the Author of the Bible intended, in order to justify its view. And to be frank, I just don't think I have the psychic energy to do with Open Theism what I did with Calvinism when I wrote my book (probably about a year and a half effort at 40 hours/week.). To most effectively respond to Open Theist arguments, in what would be to me the most convincing way, would probably require a simlar prolonged effort which, since the writing of my book, I no longer feel capable of doing.

But to get the ball rolling here, I sometimes feel as though points are made which go beyond what Christ commanded, when He said to us, "let your yes be yes, and your no be no, for whatsoever is more than these is of the evil one." I myself sometimes violate this, though I try to catch myself. So, for example, I grimace if I use the term "libertarian free will," as though there were or could be some other kind of free will. In the same sense I shudder just a little when you write:

God knew the other day that Homer could eat any number of different kinds sandwiches today. He knew Homer might or might not might eat anything at all.

It seems to me if "might" is subjunctive (you'll understand why I don't say "truly subjunctive"), there should be no need for the 3rd "might" in your sentence. This may seem like I'm being a stickler, but to add the 3rd might is imo either redundant (but I think you're too careful a writer to have done that) or else to imply that "might" doesn't really mean "might" as that word is normally understood. I'd appreciate your response on that. I think this discussion is already heading toward Open Theism's view that "would" would imply (yes, I know you would prefer I write ["...that "would" might imply (yes I know you might prefer...", etc.] a settled future, etc., but I just want to be sure that's where you're coming from.

I see you're involved with a thread on the virgin birth (and perhaps others besides this), and so I'll understand if it takes you a bit to get back to me. In the meantime I'll try to respond to Boyd's view of Romans 8:28ff.

[RickC]

Daniel -

You caught me in mid-edit (why the extra "might"). Sorry about that!

On virgin conception: I doubt I'll get very involved with that.
(I racked my brains out on it a few years ago and am satisfied with what I got).

Re: Your getting really involved with a critique of Openness.
I see what you're saying about being thorough and how doing theology takes hard work!
(I've sort of worn myself out this week, even)....

And, btw, I read several chapters of your book and really like it! (I've wanted to say that, but am starting to age a bit (@ 54) - and have forgotten to tell you)! Great job! Theos.org member "Sean" gave the link. I haven't finished it because I'm a confirmed non-Calvinist and seldom think about Calvinism (and can become disgusted if I dwell on it much). I used to 'debate' Calvinists (online and in person) but gave up. For the most part it seemed fruitless and a waste of time. I learned a lot though.

Readers (check out) -
CALVINISM: A CLOSER LOOK: Evangelicals, Calvinism, and Why No One’s Answering the Problem of Evil, by Daniel Gracely.

I appreciate your efforts at keeping this rather lengthy dialog cordial.

Thank you. I appreciate the same from you. I used to get involved with heated debates that got ugly (against Calvinists, Universalists, Dispensationalists, and more, online and in person). These days I prefer civil dialog with real engagement on the ideas. On another forum I've had completely calm exchanges with a Calvinist though we haven't discussed it much. I usually avoid certain subjects now. It depends on who I'm talking with, if things are focused, irenic, and two-way, etc.

Lastly for now: What Openness folks have in common with Edwardsians (Calvinists) may not be what you think. This is my distinct impression, anyway. I'll have to flesh it out later (before long, hopefully).

God bless you & yours, Daniel!
I've enjoyed our discussion...but sure, we can take our time, why the rush?

[Homer]

Hi TK,

You wrote:

Steve7150 gave a good response. It is perceived vs. actual free will. If God knows absolutely for certain what I will do tomorrow, that means my tomorrow is already "locked in." Of course I feel like I am acting freely, but in actuality I cannot do anything that God didn't already see me doing. So, in essence, God's foreknowledge of what I will do tomorrow "causes" me to act in accordance with his foreknowledge.

And this is what I am struggling with. If God knows, in advance, that I will freely choose to order the tuna sandwich, I agree that I can not do anything else, or God does not truly know the future. But notice I said that God knew I would freely choose the tuna sandwich. How does His knowing what I will freely choose to do make my choice no longer a free one? I don't get it.

I did order the tuna sandwich, by the way

I need to go back and read an article by Jack Cottrell (he's a Princton PhD) on the "metatemporal view of God", a view between the classical view and open theism. He has a quote at the beginning of the article where William Lane Craig said:

"Apart from the idea of God, I know of no concept so profound and so baffling as that of time. To attempt the integration of these two concepts therefore stretches our minds to the very limits of our understanding."

I consider myself stretched.

Blessings, Homer

[Sean]

If God knows all possible future choices/outcomes that can be made by man then can it still be argued that the future is determined?

[TK]

Homer wrote:

But notice I said that God knew I would freely choose the tuna sandwich. How does His knowing what I will freely choose to do make my choice no longer a free one? I don't get it.

I think this line of reasoning would be okay if God didn't know what your free choice would be. However, I am not sure if you hold that God knows what you will freely choose is any different from God simply knowing what you will choose.

I agree, this topic is very stretching and I am not entirely certain how fruitful it is- but it is a fun one to kick around.

TK

[DanielGracely]

Hi Rick,

Thanks for patiently waiting for my reply.

Greg Boyd, in his interpretation of Romans 8:29, states that the phrase, “whom He foreknew” implies there is a group whom God does not foreknow. But Boyd’s point is NOT so much about God knowing in advance people’s future choices of whether to become saved or to remain unsaved—since God cannot know human choice for certain anyway—but that God “fore-loves.” In fact, as you and I observe, Boyd takes “foreknow” to mean “fore-love,” though we both agree this is lexically unwarranted.

By this word, “fore-love,” presumably Boyd means “in advance loves.” (Indeed, what else should the prefix, “fore,” mean for the word?) Yet such a definition seems at odds with Boyd’s Open Theism. For Boyd notes elsewhere that God loves everyone at the beginning, since Christ died for all and is not desirous that any should perish. [Incidentally, I agree with Boyd that God loves all and has made Christ’s atonement one for all people (i.e., an unlimited atonement).]

But, then, what I cannot fathom is what the “fore” in “fore-love” can possible mean according to Boyd? For unless I am to stretch language beyond all credulity, “fore” must mean “beforehand” (as just noted), for that is what “fore” means. So “fore-love” ought to mean “beforehand loves.” But if God “beforehand loves” only one group as opposed to the other, which is what Boyd claims, then that contradicts Boyd’s implicit position elsewhere that God “beforehand loves” everyone through an unlimited atonement pertaining to all persons!

So, once again, Boyd is stating a doublethink: (1)God “beforehand loves” only one group / (2)God “beforehand loves” everybody.

It might be objected that Boyd doesn’t actually use the word “fore-loves” in reference to ALL people. Well, technically, no, but his appeal to unlimited atonement implies it, being descriptively synonymous. Therefore the idea that Boyd escapes the criticism above through his avoidance of using the actual word “fore-loves” in reference to ALL people, is tantamount to the same kind of argument that says because the Bible doesn’t use the word “trinity,” the “trinity” is an eisegetical concept. If the shoe of description fits a synonymous concept, one wears it. And Boyd wears it.

On the other hand, I agree with Boyd that “predestination” refers to God’s design to conform us to the Son, and that “predestination” is not about God choosing who will be saved and who will be lost. In the context of Romans 8, I believe who is predestined is the believer, though a primary meaning, if not the primary meaning, of what is predestined is the glorification of the believer’s body. This is called the “adoption” (Gr., lit. son-standing) in Romans 8:23. Here it states that the “adoption” is something which those already having the first fruits of the Spirit, await. Those who already have the first fruit of the Spirit are Christians, not unbelievers. And so “adoption” cannot here refer to a “coming into the family” of God. To be fair, lexically speaking according to 1st century Greek, I think “adoption” can be used to mean a “coming into the family.” But I don’t personally think this is how Paul ever uses it in the New Testament.

Now Boyd also feels that this thing—this conforming by God of the believer to Christ—is to be understood in abstract terms. It is something God designs for all those who believe, yet (Boyd thinks) this doesn’t imply that God knows specifically the individuals who comprise this group, unless (I presume he would argue) His knowledge of the present human condition of an individual’s heart can lead Him to know; hence, Christ’s statement to the one thief on the cross: “Today you will be with me in Paradise!”

The problem here, then, is that Boyd must make God’s exhaustive knowledge of the present condition of someone’s heart so impressive as to allow Christ to utter with certainty such a statement. This seems to fly in the face of Open Theism’s principle that God cannot know anything of the future regarding human choice. Thus my charge that Boyd is invoking divine determinism on the one hand, while betimes denying it to maintain what he is attempting to promote, that is, an open future. And so on the one hand Boyd uses language to claim a an open future for human choice, yet advocates determinism. And, indeed, Boyd does not shy away from calling it "determinism" elsewhere (e.g. when describing Cyrus’ rise to kingship, as I noted in a previous comment). But imo Boyd’s description of what God’s present and past exhaustive knowledge is capable of, is an appeal to something equal to Calvinist determinism, which requires definite knowledge in advance of human choices, the very thing Boyd is trying to refute. And so, I find his approach unsatisfactory.

BTW I hope to address soon why I feel the issue of Open Theism is so damaging to the gospel.

[Homer]

Daniel wrote:

BTW I hope to address soon why I feel the issue of Open Theism is so damaging to the gospel.DanielGracely

Looking forward to reading this!

[DanielGracely]

Hi RickC & Homer,

I mentioned in my last response that I wished to explain why I felt Open Theism damages the gospel.

Before I do, I want to say that I generally think the motive of Open Theists is to promote the gospel, to personalize God, and to remind other Christians of the importance of logic in approaching the Scriptures. And I admire Open Theists’ zeal for logic in one sense. But because I feel this zeal ultimately focuses on the logic of a great minority of the biblical passages pertaining to the Open Theist debate at the expense of the great majority of readings, such that these latter should not be taken as they naturally read, is to warrant the idea that the hermeneutical ‘tail,’ so to speak, ought to wag the ‘dog.’ And I don’t think that is a wise hermeneutic. In essence, then, biblical meaning for Open Theism's distinctives is generally sought in unnatural, not natural readings. The result is a metaphorized (or literary, not literal) word of God. And, of course, that means that God intends that language be generally understood differently than what one would naturally think. Now, note in passing that this expectation upon the reader, that he ought to take the natural reading as the unnatural, and the unnatural for the natural, implies that God is a deceiver. For what other kind of author than a deceiver would deliberately use the same word symbols already in general cultural use but insist people understand them so very differently than what they would naturally think? This error among Open Theists is a version of the same thing we see among Calvinists, who likewise regard in disputed passages where their distinctives are at stake, meanings for words that are acultural and ahistorical.

For all these reasons I believe Open Theism damages the gospel. And yet I haven’t mentioned the first reason that comes to my mind. It is that, for the skeptic, Open Theists have all but eliminated that chief internal biblical evidence the Bible uses to prove God—fulfilled prophecy. This is especially important for predictions involving people in which God is not manipulating man’s sinful responses. For to predict the actions of sinners who engage in sin—an activity God always opposes without exception (I take great issue with the common translation of Rom. 8:28, which implies God uses sin for His own ends, i.e., the good of the believer)—is to show that God is able to know the future without in any way manipulating future sin to come to pass.

IMO throughout the centuries this proof of God’s superiority via future prophecies calls out to no one more than the skeptic. Unfortunately, today, the gross ignorance of the Bible at almost every level (except among conservative pastors, seminarians, and certain other Christian professionals), has resulted in a general academic populace so unaware of biblical prophecy as to make them unffected by it. And yet Open Theism, I feel, urges this ignorance, and thereby puts one more nail in the skeptic’s coffin by trying to explain away significant fulfilled prophecy.

This distresses me because I am a skeptic by nature. But, of course, I’m not happy about it. I understand the tremendous odds of one who tries to believe despite his skepticism. Even my wife once told me it was good I became a Christian when a child, for otherwise she doubted I ever would have believed. And so I especially appreciate what future prophecy can offer my kind. And so I hate to see any biblical avenue to the skeptic shut down, much less that of biblical prophecy, for so questionable a practice as the unnatural reading of Scripture.