Verse that refutes both Calvinism and Open Theism at once?

[RickC]

DanielGracely wrote:

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.

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?"

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

Greetings all -

Last night I read all three of the Add-On Links (from my last post on p. 4) - whew!
I didn't consult the footnotes, just read straight through.
Okay, here's the thing - I GET it!!!

John -
You said, "Thanks for clearing things up Rick."
You're welcome, on what little I may have made plainer(???)....
This stuff's DEEP.

Douglas -
I see what you're saying about "God testing Abraham" and probably agree. However, why I like the Open View is because I think it is philosophically and theology true. That is, that it is congruent with reality.

Daniel -
I can understand your not being able to follow or comprehend, as I'm not especially good at math (horrible, actually). However, this time I "got (the meanings)" of the "philosophical formulas" that Boyd, Rhoda, and Best employed. I followed their logic. Made perfect sense.

Re: Boyd's Site (and articles) -
The articles aren't dated. Which doesn't help! (I hate that)! Going by the video lecture and the more recent articles (links I posted on p. 4), my guess is most of Boyd's articles are relatively old. Since they were written, Boyd has come up with new ways of articulating his views. His views have morphed and/or changed in degrees also. Thus, I recommended the video (fairly recent @ 2008) and the links on p. 4.

Replies -

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.

Boyd, Rhoda, and Best discuss foreknowledge extensively. I don't know about the actual Greek word progonoskw. I've not seen it interpreted exegetically from a text. While word-meanings have their rightful place in theology, I frankly don't see what bearing progonoskw has in our discussion of Openness. All theologians of all camps agree it means "to foreknow." But they differ on what all foreknowledge entails, on both philosophical and theological grounds (if you see what I'm saying).

Excerpted from Boyd's A Brief Outline and Defense of the the Open View -
Common Objections

1: The Open view undermines God’s omniscience

Response: I affirm (because Scripture teaches) that God is absolutely all knowing. There is no difference in my understanding of God’s omniscience and that of any other classical theologian, but I hold that part of the reality which God perfectly knows consists of possibilities as well as actualities. The difference lies in our understanding of the nature of the future, not in our understanding of God’s omniscience.

Boyd and his Openness colleagues do not "...continue to agree with Edwards that to know the future would necessitate causing it to come to pass." Boyd agrees with the "Edwardsian (Calvinistic)" view that God knows all things. But he does not agree with Calvinists that God's foreknowledge of future events causes them. Boyd maintains libertarian free will across the board.

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.

If this is what Don (Paidion) said, he wouldn't agree with Greg Boyd (and probably Rhoda and Best). (Btw, I wonder when Don will be back)?

Re-posting from Boyd's video -
The Open View of the Future (note Boyd doesn't say "of God")
Possibilities are Ontologically Real (is a basic assumption in Boyd's view)
1. God knows all things
2. All things includes future possibilities
--> Some of reality (past, present, and future) is definite and perfectly known by God as such
--> Some of reality (some of the future) is indefinite (possibly this and possibly that) and perfectly known by God as such.

This illustrates how the Open View differs radically from others on the nature of reality. Calvinists, Molinists, and Arminians argue for EDF (Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge) which could be summarized as -
1. God knows all things
2. ALL of reality (past, present, and future) is definite and perfectly known by God as such

Sidebar on possible Arminian objections -
Note I did not say that God causes future events (e.g., the future realities that people will choose to believe or not to believe). Rather I just made note that the Arminian view also agrees with Calvinist and Molinist views on the nature of reality in terms of God's foreknowledge: Namely, that God knows the future exhaustively (EDF - Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge).

Back to TK -
Regardless of whether or not Don said, "....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" - as you can see, this would contrast sharply with Boyd, who also says, "God knows future possibilities perfectly, as if they were certainties." Thus, when future choices are made, both God's omniscience and libertarian free will are maintained.

I keep re-posting Boyd's notes from the video.
And still get the feeling y'all ain't gettin' what he really means....

Am I correct?

Thanks!
(Please read the articles, if possible, I had the spare time)!

[TK]

Hi RickC-

I think Paidion would have agreed that God knows all future POSSIBILITIES which is decidedly different than saying God knows the future. Paidion would say there is no such thing as a future to know. (At least this is what I THINK he would have said. I will try to find these discussions on the old forum and link to them- that way he can speak for himself).

TK

[TK]

Here are some threads from the old forum:

Open Theists Believe in the Omniscience of God

(you will note that posts from a poster named bshow1 no longer appear)

Is Open Theism Heresy?

The Open View of God or Open Theism

TK

[RickC]

I think Paidion would have agreed that God knows all future POSSIBILITIES which is decidedly different than saying God knows the future. Paidion would say there is no such thing as a future to know. (At least this is what I THINK he would have said. I will try to find these discussions on the old forum and link to them- that way he can speak for himself).

'Don't think I got in on 'old forum' Openness discussions much. Thanks for the links. But what you're saying about Don's views is probably about right. Since he's not here, I won't comment on what he thinks other than what I've said (where he and Boyd would probably not agree). Perhaps Don will come back soon? and join the discussion?

In the meantime, I'm trying to absorb what I read last night! I followed and agreed with everything I read at the time. The key now is: To remember it! Of course, several sub-topics arise in topics like this. If we get that far, it would be interesting to use the terminology Boyd and the others use on their alternate sub-themes.

Guess we'll see, huh?

Thanks!

[RickC]

TK writes:

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?"

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.

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.

Hello Daniel -
I found 2 links by Boyd that might (at least somewhat) address -

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....
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.

But first, I'd be interested in extra-biblical references of where προγινώσκω (proginwskw) is used in a non-determinative sense. Anything you might have on that would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, if you find time, etc.

Romans 8 (NKJV, I think Boyd uses TNIV)
28 And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29 For whom He foreknew (Gk, προέγνω), He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
Romans 11:2a (NKJV)
2 God has not cast away His people (Israelites) whom He foreknew (Gk, προέγνω).

* προέγνω - Verb: Third Person Aorist Active Indicative Singular
(from προγινώσκω, "to know beforehand")

Okay, 2 links form Boyd's site -
How do you respond to Romans 8:29? -

“For whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family.”

One of the greatest treasures given to believers when they open their hearts to the Lord is the promise that they shall certainly be “conformed to the image of [God’s] son.” However much we may struggle with sin in this present age, we may know that if we continue to trust in Jesus we will someday be like Jesus. This much is predestined for us.

But what does Paul mean when he says that this Christ-likeness is predestined for those “whom [God] foreknew?” Some argue that this suggests that God knows from all eternity who will and will not believe in Jesus. Unfortunately, the verse actually contradicts their view. Paul is referring to a specific group of people—those “whom [God] foreknew…” This group obviously contrasts with a group of people whom God did not foreknow. If the classical doctrine of foreknowledge is correct, however, God foreknows everything from all eternity. How then can Paul speak about a particular group of people whom he foreknew?

To understand the verse correctly we have to remember that the concept of “knowing someone” was often equivalent to “loving someone” in Jewish culture. To “foreknow” someone was thus to “love them ahead of time.” This is exactly how Paul uses the term two chapters later when he says, “God has not rejected his people [Israel] whom he foreknew” (11:2). We may thus conclude that just as God loved the nation of Israel ahead of time, so God loved the Church ahead of time. He predestined this group of people “to be conformed to the image of his Son.” Note that what is loved ahead of time in both Romans 8:29 and 11:2 is a corporate body, not particular individuals. When individuals freely accept the conditions of participating in that corporate body, all that is true of that body becomes true of them. They are now part of the body that was loved ahead of time by God and predestined to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ. But whether or not they would freely decide to align themselves with this body was neither foreknown nor predestined.

How do you respond to Romans 8:29-30? -

Question: Romans 8:29–30 says that everyone God foreknew he predestined. You deny both that God foreknows and predestines individual believers. So this verse seems to refute your open view.

Answer: First, as many exegetes have noted, the sort of “knowing” Paul intends in this passage is not merely intellectual knowledge, but rather an intimate affection. Two chapters later when Paul refers to God’s people (Israel) “whom he foreknew” (Rom. 11:2), he does not mean to say that God knew about these people (as opposed to all other people) ahead of time. Paul is rather saying that God loved these people ahead of time.

Now, although God fore-loved the nation of Israel, there were still individuals within this corporate whole who clearly rejected God’s love for them (e.g. Saul, Judas), as well as individuals outside this corporate whole who chose to receive God’s love for them (e.g. Rahab, Ruth). So the fore-love spoken of in this passage is toward the class of people who keep covenant with him. Individuals can choose to either align themselves with this class of fore-loved people or not.

The same sort of thing is going on in Romans 8:29. God’s affection is set ahead of time on the class of people who will enter in covenant with God through Christ. The text does not imply that God loves certain individuals ahead of time but not others. And the text certainly doesn’t imply that God foreknows who will and will not choose to be in Christ ahead of time. In fact, any attempt to use this text to prove that God foreknows future free acts actually backfires, for the “foreknowledge” Paul speaks about is limited. Paul says “those who God foreknew he predestined…” This implies there are others God did not foreknow.

Nor can this passage be used to support that idea that God predestines who will and will not be in Christ. Read the text carefully. What is predestined is not who will be in or out, but what will happen to all who are in. They will eventually be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ and glorified. God predestines the consequence of the choice to be in Christ or not, but he doesn’t predestine the choice itself. Scripture is clear that God wants every person to put their trust in his Son, and through his Spirit God empowers us toward this end (2 Pet. 3:9).

As we've been saying, these articles are probably fairly old and Boyd would probably articulate his points differently now. In these 2 articles his focus seemed to be in a 'non-and/or-anti-Calvinist' vein.

I found (on google) the book Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (2001) with contributions by Greg Boyd, David Hunt, William Lane Craig, and Paul Helm. On page 23, footnote 12, Boyd says (I'll paraphrase/abbreviate) that 'when the Bible talks about what God does, it is analogical to the way we do things such as love, judge, or know things ahead of time. The difference between us and Him is: He does so without imperfections'. I resonate with these ideas.

Where Greg wrote (above, Romans 8:29 link) -
To understand the verse correctly we have to remember that the concept of “knowing someone” was often equivalent to “loving someone” in Jewish culture. To “foreknow” someone was thus to “love them ahead of time.”
Without attempts at getting technical here, I recall some time ago when I was in debate with Calvinists. Romans 8:29 and other verses from all around the Bible were being dissected and given various meanings, quite often to support a premise and devoid of context. As I was considering every possible meaning of words I could find, it occurred to me that, "Maybe all of these word-studies are missing the real point of what was being said (written in the Bible). Perhaps God's "foreknowing" us is really meant to be taken in relational terms - as opposed to in philosophical terms - that He was thinking of us affectionately in advance."

I'm still thinking that...hmmm... ....

Anyways, maybe some of the above will spark discussion about non-determinative uses of προγινώσκω ?


Have a good day, Daniel and all!
Thanks!

[TK]

DG wrote:

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.

I am just curious about what your position is-- do you think God "knows the future" without at the same time affecting free will? I used to try to think this way, but became convinced it doesn't work.

TK

[DanielGracely]

Hi RickC,

I’m puzzled why you would draw from this quote of mine…

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.

…the inference that I am claiming that Open Theists agree with Edwards that God’s foreknowledge causes future events. I have never thought nor stated that. Rather, I was merely restating in my own words what I emphasize in the below quote from Boyd et al's article that you directed me to:

“On the one hand, OFV proponents agree with Ockhamists (over against Edwardsians) that there are future contingents, i.e., that the future is causally open. For obvious reasons, we’ll call this the contingency thesis. On the other hand, they agree with Edwardsians (over against Ockhamists) that semantic settledness presupposes causal settledness.”

Unless I’m misunderstanding what Boyd is saying, he’s not simply saying that Open Theists agree with Edwards that God knows everything there is to know. He is also saying that Open Theists agree with Edwardsians that the (theoretical) idea of God foreknowing human choice presupposes causality affecting the future (which Open Theists reject as an impossibility).

As for my not taking the time to comprehend all that I scanned of Boyd’s article, I nevertheless realized during my reading that the goal of the article was to provide a “proof” of what Boyd regards as the illogicality and therefore impossibility of God knowing in advance human choice. Like a mathematical “proof” (e.g., the proof of 2+3=5 is that 5-3=2) Boyd's is also circular in argument, like all ‘proofs’ (yours, mine, everyone’s). Such proofs are merely round about ways to ‘prove’ what has already been judged to be true by the one making the ‘proof’. It’s one reason I didn’t take the 3 or 4 hours to bother grasping Boyd’s argument. I realized his a priori assumption is based in "logic," though a logic really only selectively applied to the minority of passages whose natural reading favors Open Theism. In fact, I feel that Open Theists are gross violators of logic most of the time. The example of the Lord’s “Now I know…” spoken to Abraham comes to mind, in which Open Theists stress the precision of the grammar—the word now—while completely overlooking the implied word now in the majority of other passages that support their opponents' view.

I also feel strongly that Boyd does NOT hold to anything close to the same classical meaning of "to foreknow", which is why I stress the semantic meaning given the word progonoskw in the N.T. and in the extra-biblical writings of the 1st century. For it is not the words we use, but the meaning poured into the words that matter. To suppose that Boyd agrees with the classical view simply on the basis that both believe that God knows all there is to know, is meaningless, since, if I said, "All God knows is baseball, for there is nothing else to know," that I should be thought to agree with Boyd and the classical view, since I claim that God knows all there is to know.

[Homer]

Earlier TK wrote:

....do you think God "knows the future" without at the same time affecting free will? I used to try to think this way, but became convinced it doesn't work.

I guess I'm too simple minded for this discussion. If God knows I will order a tuna sandwich for lunch when we go to town tomorrow, how does that affect (maybe I should say "effect" ) my free will if I want a tuna sandwich? Seems to me God can know I will order a tuna sandwich and that I will freely choose to do so, and my free will is in no way affected. What's so tough about that?

And if God knows all future possibilities as though they are real, how is that any different than me (or you) knowing future possibilities? Just that God knows more of them? If they are only possibilities, they are then not facts. Seems to me the open theists are only logical part- time.

[steve7150]

I guess I'm too simple minded for this discussion. If God knows I will order a tuna sandwich for lunch when we go to town tomorrow, how does that affect (maybe I should say "effect" ) my free will if I want a tuna sandwich? Seems to me God can know I will order a tuna sandwich and that I will freely choose to do so, and my free will is in no way affected. What's so tough about that?






I think the key is "my free will" as opposed to actual free will. In your mind you chose a tuna sandwich but if the future was already settled then you could'nt really reject a tuna sandwich though you thought you could. Hopefully you like tuna.

[TK]

Homer wrote:

I guess I'm too simple minded for this discussion. If God knows I will order a tuna sandwich for lunch when we go to town tomorrow, how does that affect (maybe I should say "effect" ) my free will if I want a tuna sandwich? Seems to me God can know I will order a tuna sandwich and that I will freely choose to do so, and my free will is in no way affected. What's so tough about that?

Simple-minded? Ha! that's a good one Homer- you are anything but that.

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.

CS Lewis dealt with this by arguing God is outside time. He argued that since, for Him, the past, present and future are all "now" to God, then He does not foresee me doing something tomorrow; he simply sees me doing it. The illustration he gave was that if you imagine our "time stream" as a line extending infinitely in both directions, God's viewpoint is the entire page this timeline is drawn on. He is on the outside looking in.

I used to really like this concept because it did seem to answer some difficult questions. However, as is usual, other people on this forum kid of dashed this idea to bits.

TK