Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?

[RickC]

Greetings -

I can't recall if I've mentioned (on this thread, anyway) that: The only evidence that any Jews of the first century were determinists comes from Josephus, who describes the Essenes as the same. (To what extent the Essenes and Calvinists 'agree' would be another topic that would take quite a bit of evaluation. I've looked and not found anything on this, which doesn't make sense! I've mentioned it to some Calvinists, asking them about it, but they didn't reply)....

On top of this, Paul was a Pharisee, not an Essene. Now, had Paul been an Essene, things might be different. If such were the case, he would have been clearly deterministic and we would have no cause to question if he was. He would have fully outlined a deterministic doctrine. But as it stands, the NT has no internal evidence to support determinism of either an Essenic or Calvinistic variety.

That's the concern- not calvinism per se, but it is no topic for a newbie to get mired in. there are many more important and pressing things to learn.

TK -
I don't think a new Christian - (or anyone for that matter) - can help but to think about stuff like: What does predestination mean? and other related questions. I would suggest that for a new Christian, rather than avoiding these topics for some time later, that it be explained that Christians have had differing views. Something like 'the Steve Gregg method' which says "there are different views out there." And that it might take a while (I've been at it since 1974! Not a Calvinist, not an Arminian, I know by now anyways),

I do agree, however, that a new Christian should not get totally 'caught up' on these things.

Also, you could find this person's church's site. Their doctrinal statement and/or course description may tell you to what degree they are Calvinistic (and even if they give all views)!

....My dad (who happens to also be my pastor) and I attend a Bible study on Tuesday nights at another church. I didn't get to go last night, but my dad reported that the night's teacher taught on Calvinsim (pro) for over 1.5 hours. When he was finished, he asked if anyone had anything to say or points of disagreement and then a pretty fiery debate on the topic between him and my dad began....

Jeff-
You had mentioned you 'get along' okay with some Calvinists. So do I. We don't discuss Calvinism! (and have other common interests). What I'm hoping for TK's cousin's friend is that, to whatever degree they are exposed to Calvinism, they will at least see other views are out there to be looked at.

Back to the thread (generally speaking, and also to Daniel) -
I read Daniel's last post and relistened to Greg Boyd's talk. It seems to me that, from early on in this thread, those of us who have heard Boyd, or read what I posted from his lecture, are seeing and hearing the same words but not the same meanings of the words. This was partially why I 'backed out' of the discussion. Other than that, I'm still studying Openness on my own.

Thanks!

[psimmond]

I don't know whether or not I've said this before, but I do think it's a shame that the forum Index lists "Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism" under Doctrinal Topics with no mention of Molinism. I think it deserves a place with the other three. If you haven't read up on Molinism, you really should visit William Lane Craig's website http://www.reasonablefaith.org/

Here's something I posted about a year ago on a different thread (http://theos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f= ... t=molinism):

From William Lane Craig:
"Philosophically, I’m persuaded by arguments such as have been offered by Harry Frankfurt that free choice does not entail the ability to do otherwise. Imagine that a mad scientist has secretly wired your brain with electrodes so that he can control your choices. Suppose that in the last Presidential election, he wanted you to vote for Obama and had determined that if you were going to vote for McCain he would activate the electrodes and make you cast your vote for Obama. Now as it turns out, you also wanted to vote for Obama, and so when you went into the polling booth you marked your ballot for Obama, and therefore the scientist never activated the electrodes. I think it’s clear that you freely voted for Obama, even though it was not possible for you to do otherwise. What this thought experiment suggests is that the essence of free choice is the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices; it is up to you alone how you choose.

Now in the case of God, if God is essentially good, then there is no possible world in which He does evil. But does that imply that God does not freely do the good? Not if Frankfurt’s analysis is right. For God acts in the complete absence of any causal constraint whatsoever upon Him. It is up to Him and Him alone how He acts. He therefore acts freely in doing the good. That God is acting freely is evident in the fact that His will is not inclined necessarily toward any particular finite good; He chooses to do whatever He wants."

If you can accept the possibility that the essence of free choice is the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices, then it all falls into place. Homer freely chose his tuna sandwich in spite of the fact that God knew beforehand that Homer was going to choose tuna.

[Paidion]

Thanks for resurrecting this thread, Mr. Simmond. I was away from home for over a year, and was unaware of the thread during the time it was active.

As for Molinism, I don't really see this as a solution to the resolution of free will with the idea that no events are contingent. Molinists present their counterfactuals, but in the end, no event could have been different from what it actually actually — only if something else had been different, but that was not the case. So in this respect, the view is no different from that of Calvinism or Arminianism. In all three views no even is truly contingent.

Calvinism: All events are inevitable since God determines each of them.

Arminianism: All events are inevitable since God forsaw each of them, and knew they would happen.

Molinism: All events are inevitable. Though events would have been different if something else had happened, nevertheless, they had to be what they were because of the events which did lead up to them or cause them.

Open Theism: No event is inevitable unless God makes it happen (In my view even such an event as God makes happen is not inevitable either, because God may change His mind). All events are determined by the choices of God and man (any maybe some animals). Therefore these events would have been different if free will agents had chosen differently. The choices of free will agents originate from themselves, and are not caused by prior events, though these choices are often influenced by prior events or other free will agents.

[psimmond]

Hi Paidion,
I think your definitions are pretty good.

Calvinism: All events are inevitable since God determines each of them.

Arminianism: All events are inevitable since God forsaw each of them, and knew they would happen.

Molinism: All events are inevitable. Though events would have been different if something else had happened, nevertheless, they had to be what they were because of the events which did lead up to them or cause them.

Open Theism: No event is inevitable unless God makes it happen (In my view even such an event as God makes happen is not inevitable either, because God may change His mind). All events are determined by the choices of God and man (any maybe some animals). Therefore these events would have been different if free will agents had chosen differently. The choices of free will agents originate from themselves, and are not caused by prior events, though these choices are often influenced by prior events or other free will agents.

I would just add that in the Molinistic view, God's creation of this particular world was contingent upon His prior knowledge of necessary truths as well as His middle knowledge (including counterfactuals). So since God created this world with full knowledge of what specific free agents would freely choose, God knows with certainty whether or not Homer will choose tuna or ham.

As we discussed on the other thread, this breaks down if you feel that free choices necessitate "the ability to do otherwise" rather than the absence of causal constraint with respect to your choices; however, I think Harry Frankfurt's argument sufficiently demonstrates the latter.

While I think Open Theism solves some of the problems inherent in Calvinist and Arminian theology, I see Molinism as the best explanation of how free will agents can freely choose without resorting to ignorance on the part of God.

[Perry]

I would just add that in the Molinistic view, God's creation of this particular world was contingent upon His prior knowledge of necessary truths as well as His middle knowledge (including counterfactuals). So since God created this world with full knowledge of what specific free agents would freely choose, God knows with certainty whether or not Homer will choose tuna or ham.

First, let me make sure I've got this straight...

In the Molinistic view, God can, with perfect knowledge, see, not just everything that we are going to do, but everything that we would do (with our free will) in any particular circumstance whether that circumstance actually arises or not (i.e. counterfactuals). So, prior to the creation of the world, He examined all possible circumstances before deciding which one to actualize. He sort of, (and this may be a bad analogy) mentally ran all the simulations and looked at how the different possible scenarios would play out before picking this one to actually kick off. Is that a pretty fair assessment of Molinism?

[psimmond]

Hi Perry,
To the best of my understanding, your assessment is pretty good. God knows what free-will agents are going to do. Prior to creation, he knew what they would do given all counterfactuals, and creation was contingent upon that middle knowledge. The ideal world would have everyone love, trust, and obey God, but since this isn't feasible when you factor in free will, God created the best feasible world with regard to His overall purpose.

Also I agree that your analogy is both good and bad because since God has all knowledge, he doesn't need to run simulations to figure anything out, he knows.

If you haven't visited Craig's website, you should. The question and answer section is really good.