Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by Si » Sun May 06, 2018 10:21 am

Seeker wrote:Question for you Si: Which of the following two scenarios do you believe is more difficult to accept logically:

1) "At the time of creation, God foreknew what would happen, yet is not responsible for all that happens." (non-Calvinist position)

2) "God controls 100% of the choices a man makes, yet man is 100% responsible for the choices he makes and punishable for them". (Calvinist position)
Both seem equally difficult, and not so different. I would assume that in preposition one, you could phrase it as "At the time of creation God foreknew 100% what would happen, yet man is 100% responsible for the choices he makes and punishable for them." It seems logically impossible to understand how God can foreknow something that he didn't intend to happen. It seems logically consistent to suggest that if God foreknew, then he intended. If he intended, then he willed. If he willed, then he predestined. If God as creator foreknew the very hairs of the heads of those who would be lost in hell, then he intended for that fate to come to pass, it is a part of his act in creation. Otherwise you have you have to argue that what God foreknew, he did not intend. How can you say that the initial creation was very good if sin and rebellion were baked into the cake from the very beginning? If an engineer knows that his plans for building a bridge are faulty, and he goes ahead with construction, and the bridge collapses, who is to blame?

If we are to maintain that the initial creation was good, then sin and rebellion could not have manifested in actuality, and not in deterministic certainty. To make man accountable for his actions, I don't see any other logical scenario but to say that God truly created free agents, and gave them an opportunity to choose the path to life, or the path to destruction. I don't see how a free choice is possible under classic Arminianism for the reasons above. It seems to me that the logical consequence of meticulous foreknowledge is determinism, and indistinguishable from Calvinism.
Seeker wrote:At a glance both seem very difficult to accept, but...

With regard to #1 my opinion is that the creation events are so singularly unfathomable to us (we being part of that creation) that we may never know all nuances and effects that follow from them. Therefore the difficulty we may have fathoming how God could foreknow without controlling everything I simply can chalk up to our own limited understanding of the creation events.
This could very well be. I am not opposed to this idea, but it makes interaction in this kind of discussion difficult. When what I see as a logical contradiction is called a mystery, or unfathomable, then my position is not really debunked because it hasn't been interacted with. If you or anyone else who disagrees with me sees something illogical in my posts I would love to talk about that. Yet, I have not seen that happen, only that what we are discussing is in fact above and beyond logic.
Seeker wrote:Throw in the fact that I'm not completely convinced that God has meticulous foreknowledge of the future, and I simply don't have the same trouble reconciling the concept that a Calvinist seems to want to have.
If you are not convinced that God has meticulous foreknowledge, then you are to some degree an open theist.
Seeker wrote:But with regard to #2, there seem to be no possible "outs" so to speak. If a man can do nothing other than what God has ordained that he do, then it is logically impossible that he has free will. Nor could God possibly hold him responsible for his actions, get frustrated over his actions, and ultimately send the man to hell for doing that which he could not possibly have done differently.

As you urged in previous post, the above leaves out scriptural references and focuses on logic. So I'd ask out of curiosity, on a scale of 1-10, how difficult is it logically to accept the claim of #1 vs. the claim of #2. To me, #1 is about a 6/10, whereas #2 is 10/10. That would make the claim of #2 utterly invalid. But anything less than a 10 at least leaves the door open to validity. If you think the claim of #2 is easier to accept than the claim of #1, I'd be very interested your thoughts on that.
Both one and two seem utterly contradictory. Meticulous providence and meticulous foreknowledge seem to me to be two different flavors of determinism. To accept them and also accept man's responsibility, I could not appeal to logic, but suspend it and appeal to mystery, or appeal to the notion that this is utterly incomprehensible to me as a mere creature. Like I said I am not opposed to this idea, but it is an idea that cannot be defended logically.

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by robbyyoung » Sun May 06, 2018 10:40 am

TK wrote:The difference is that God could not miraculously create a stone so heavy that He could not lift it, nor could he miraculously create a square circle. He cannnot miraculously create something that is internally illogical (not sure if internal is the right word there).

However, there is nothing internally illogical about miracles we see in scripture. God certainly has the power to part the Red Sea, or cause manna to fall from heaven, or raise a person from the dead. But he couldn't part the Red Sea while still leaving it unparted, and He could not cause manna to fall while leaving it in the sky, and he can't raise someone from the dead who is already alive.
Hi TK,

Although I haven’t studied the different schools of thought on logic, I understand what you are saying, but I believe you are making the fundamental mistake of conflating supernatural and natural possibilities under the third law of logic, excluded middle, which says that statements are either true or false. Yes, God can’t create a stone that He cannot lift, why? Because He cannot deny Himself. How do we know this? Because He said so (2 Tim. 2:13). However, if I’m not mistaken, God can raise someone from the dead who is already alive; He raised Yeshua (Jesus) who never ceased to be God, didn’t He? This is why contradictions or the excluded middle do not necessarily apply, equally, to both the supernatural and natural.

In reality, we are prisoners of our own decisions. Just because God knows and declares the end from the beginning, doesn’t make Him guilty of our inevitable choices nor does it negate our free-will. Like the OP suggest, this is more of a question concerning man’s ultimate end against God’s righteous judgment, character, and will. Therefore, God’s determinism might be universal reconciliation because He, who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4), also affirms, for who can resist his will? (Rom 9:19); moreover, if he died for all (2 Cor 5:15), God said He was reconciling the world and not imputing their trespasses unto them (2 Cor 5:19). I try not to forget that with God all things are possible.

Blessings!

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by Si » Sun May 06, 2018 11:16 am

Thanks, robbyyoung for bringing up universal reconciliation. When you say that this is more of a question concerning man’s ultimate end against God‘s righteous judgment, character, and will you hit the nail right on the head. When I wrote the opening post for this thread, this is what I had in mind. This discussion has largely been about foreknowledge and open theism, Which is fine. But I would also really value people’s input Into this important topic as well.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by TK » Sun May 06, 2018 4:40 pm

UR is the only thing that would “redeem” a Calvinistic view of Gods sovereignty, but of course Calvin believed no such thing.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by mattrose » Tue May 08, 2018 10:44 am

Si wrote:Thanks, robbyyoung for bringing up universal reconciliation. When you say that this is more of a question concerning man’s ultimate end against God‘s righteous judgment, character, and will you hit the nail right on the head. When I wrote the opening post for this thread, this is what I had in mind. This discussion has largely been about foreknowledge and open theism, Which is fine. But I would also really value people’s input Into this important topic as well.
I am an open theist

To my mind, this leads me to be a hopeful universalist.

I believe that God desires that none will perish, but I do not believe that God dictates that none will perish. God creates free creatures who may choose to reject the source of eternal life.

I don't think anything changes in God's character when a person dies. So, hypothetically, I do believe a repentant person in "hell" would be gracefully received by Jesus. But I don't know if there will be any repentant people in hell. I am hopeful that there will be that possibility. And I am hopeful that all will take full advantage of that possibility if it does present itself. But there are many levels of my ignorance on this topic (whether it is possible, whether they will take advantage), so I am only hopeful that all will be reconciled.

God is, of course, aware of whether it is possible to repent post-posthumously. But even God, in my view, cannot know what free creatures will choose in the future. In that sense I believe God, too, is a hopeful universalist.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by mattrose » Tue May 08, 2018 11:36 am

I don't want to derail the philosophical/logical intentions of the thread, but Homer did ask about a few specific verses and how Open Theists might understand them, so I wanted to briefly share my perspective on those passages.

Romans 8:29
As Paidion said, I think we tend to read Paul too individualistically. I think all Paul is saying is that God pre-determined that He would sanctify all who related properly to Him. The whole group would become like Christ.

Ephesians 1
This whole chapter, to my mind, makes the 'corporate election' point. God chose us IN HIM before the creation of the world (1:3). Those who read the bible more individualistically tend to take this to mean that God chose individual people before the world was created. But the passage is actually talking about God choosing the group who would be 'in Christ'. Whether individuals are or are not in Christ depends largely on their free response to grace. The whole passage goes on like this. We are predestined THROUGH JESUS CHRIST (1:5). IN HIM we have redemption (1:7). IN HIM we are chosen (1:11). Individuals are INCLUDED IN CHRIST when they believed... not before the foundation of the world (1:13). It was the group that was predestined. The emphasis in the passage should, in my opinion, fall on the corporate (in Him) language.

Revelation 17:8
I'd say this verse is the strongest seeming opposition to open theism of the passages you mentioned. I find it interesting that in a couple different matters of dispute (hell, open theism), the strongest support for the positions I no longer hold end up coming from the book of Revelation (the most symbolic and difficult book in the Bible to interpret, in my opinion). That's not meant to sound dismissive of the text, but simply to acknowledge the reality that it's a hard text and, perhaps, shouldn't be the main basis for doctrinal positions. I don't really have a strong interpretation of how that text fits with open theism. I am just of the opinion that open theism makes the most sense of the vast majority of relevant passages and has the fewest verses that leave me scratching my head.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by mattrose » Tue May 08, 2018 12:07 pm

As a final installment of my thoughts on this thread, I wanted to share, again, an analogy I use to help me understand (I think) the differences Christians have on this issue.

Hard-Calvinists think of the timeline as a film in which God has served as writer and director. What's more, God is a very rigid writer and director. God doesn't want or allow His actors to take liberties. He just wants them to act out what has been predetermined because this will create the kind of film that will bring Him the most glory. God exists independently of the film. All parts of the film (beginning, middle, and end) are the same to Him. He knows every detail about the entire film. The film has been completed.

Classical-Arminians think of the timeline as a film in which God has served as writer and director. But God is a relational writer and director. God wanted and invited His actors to take some liberties. He wanted them to know Him well enough that they could add to the beauty of the film with some degree of spontaneity. God was pleased by their participation. But God also exists independently of the film. All parts of the film (beginning, middle, end) are the same to Him. He knows every detail about the entire film. The film has been completed. So while the actors did have some degree of freedom DURING the making of the film, they cannot now change anything about the film. In one sense, the characters only existed while the film was created in the studio. They are now solidified.

Open Theists think of the timeline as film that is still being created. God serves as writer and director. God is relational God who invites participation from His actors. He wants them to know Him well enough that they can bring more beauty to the film project. God has put all His love into this film-making project. The beginning of the film has been shot. The middle has been shot. But the end is still being created. God knows, as writer and director, how He is going to conclude the film, but He doesn't know how each individual actor will play out their part. The characters are real, ongoing, characters.

This is not a perfect analogy. Nor is it particularly well-worded (as I just typed it out in a few minutes for the first time). But it's a way of me sharing my thoughts on this subject.

Si
Posts: 95
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2016 1:03 am
Location: Wisconsin

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by Si » Thu May 10, 2018 2:30 pm

Thanks for those analogies Matt, they're really useful.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by Paidion » Thu May 10, 2018 5:55 pm

Hi Robby, you wrote:Just because God knows and declares the end from the beginning...
Many people use this passage to back up the idea that God knows every person's actions before they are carried out. But contextually, the passage clearly states that God is able to declare in advance the end from the beginning OF HIS PLANS for the future:
..I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,'...(Isaiah 46:9,10 ESV)
In short, God often says what He's gonna do. This passage is not at all about God knowing in advance the decisions of every free-will agent.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Foreknowledge = Determinism? And God's Character.

Post by mattrose » Thu May 10, 2018 6:38 pm

Probably one of the biggest misconceptions about open theism is the assumption that open theists think the future is totally 'open'

Most any open theist I've read believes that the 'open' parts are just the results of those moments when libertarian freedom is at play amongst certain creatures.

There are some things that God has determined to do no matter what. And there are some things that have already been determined by previous choices. There are some hearts that are hardened (and the situation no longer can be counted as one in which libertarian freedom is present).

Post Reply

Return to “Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism”