Foreknowledge prevents freedom? [Archive]

geebob

September 5th 2004, 08:37 PM

Well, then, on what basis does he decide, or not?

whatever basis is relevent at the time.

Is there any reason to postpone a decision, except to be able to make future free decisions? I don't think there is.

Is there any reason not to postpone a decision? When there is, I don't think God postponed a decision, but there's no reason to suggest this is the case with all positions.

But there is indeed reason to postpone decisions. For God to have a creation is qualitatively different than for him to merely ponder it and make decisions while planning his decisions. Thus there would be more experiential value for him to decide at the time. And God has created for his experiential pleasure (among other reasons).

And now we have all free decisions required to be spur-of-the-moment ones.

there's no such requirement. And even the free decisions God has yet to make will not necessarily be spur of the moment.

Such as his decision to create the world! Must we say that God did not know whether he would create the world, up until the very moment when he said "Let there be light"? I think that's pretty unlikely...

we don't have to say that with my picture I've offered and we don't have to deny it either. It could be the case that God had planned for a long time to create before actually doing so, and he might have done it spur of the moment. But of course both of these presume a metric of time before creation and that's something we don't know much of anything about. I believe there was a metric of time that is simply apart of God's nature, but it's not something I'll dogmatically insist.

Interestingly, it is nothing unique to open viewers who might say that God didn't know that he would create until he did it. This is pretty much the picture William Lane Craig paints as he doesn't think there was time prior to God's decision to create the world. And someone here suggested that he doesn't even hold to a metric at the start of time but rather time as metered started right at creation.

lee_merrill

September 6th 2004, 02:27 PM

Hi Geebob,

Lee: Is there any reason to postpone a decision, except to be able to make future free decisions?

Geebob: For God to have a creation is qualitatively different than for him to merely ponder it and make decisions while planning his decisions. Thus there would be more experiential value for him to decide at the time.I think you're saying that God can make a better decision tomorrow than he can make today! Which sounds like God develops, and changes, and improves, which is now (I think) process theology, not Open View. This is not a thread where I can tackle process theology! But I am trying to tackle the Open View here.

Lee: And now we have all free decisions required to be spur-of-the-moment ones.

Geebob: there's no such requirement. And even the free decisions God has yet to make will not necessarily be spur of the moment.How can it be otherwise, though, if knowing a future decision makes it not free?

Lee: Must we say that God did not know whether he would create the world, up until the very moment when he said "Let there be light"?

Geebob: … both of these presume a metric of time before creation and that's something we don't know much of anything about. I believe there was a metric of time that is simply apart of God's nature, but it's not something I'll dogmatically insist.That's a good point, but Scripture does refer to events before creation, as if there was time before the moment of creation:

John 17:24 you loved me before the creation of the world.

Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world…

1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

And isn't "how God would choose in a given situation" a present fact about God? And doesn't the Open View hold that God knows all present facts?

Blessings,
Lee

themuzicman

September 6th 2004, 02:33 PM

Was it necessay for God to create?

geebob

September 6th 2004, 09:00 PM

Hoy Lee

I think you're saying that God can make a better decision tomorrow than he can make today!

Why would it be better? because it would be more wise? I say it would be better for God because God would have more value in living and acting in the reality that he created.

If it is more wise for God to choose tomorrow on some decisions, it's because that's the way God made the world and that's the way he wanted it with the kind of relationship he wanted with it, and in his infinite wisdom, he has decided to put some things (and definitely not all things) on hold.

Which sounds like God develops, and changes, and improves, which is now (I think) process theology, not Open View.

In process, there is a whole ontology of change. God has a changeless part in his character, but I don't know that it is much more than that in his character, in love, and holyness and so on. but the metaphysical, the actuality of God is in perpetual flux that being requires (and that's not necessarily developement). This is not so in the open view.

Is there developement in God? Well that is the basic Christian message that we have a relationship with God and that relationship developes. Is it nothing to God that there will be a wedding feast in heaven between the bride and the bridegroom?! Or is it significant? (and hence a significant change). And in this picture, we need to make no suggestion in regard to the metaphysical grounding of God in developement in that sense like process theists do.

If you deny that God has a history and more specifically a relational history with us, which is synonomous with a type of developement, you might as well tear out the parts in the bible that plato didn't write because the bible is about our story with God and it is a story that developes. It isn't just our developement but God's as well, because for one thing, God forgives us. That is a change. That is a sort of developement (definitely not the sort that implys improvement), a very significant one.

But I am trying to tackle the Open View here.

there's worse bugbears than the open view. Try on a view that says that God has destined some creatures made in his image for eternal torment. I don't mean to get on a tangent here, but I notice you spend much of your time on the least worse things (which in my estimation is not worse at all). But that's not a big problem and perhaps is not a problem at all (though as I hold the open view is true, I could say that this doesn't contribute to the body of christ, but in fact that's wrong as there needs to be inquiry on truth that we don't understand to be true...assuming the open view is true...which I do). The body of Christ is made of many parts after all with different small term goals.

I don't intend to say that this thread is wrong headed, but I am puzzled that you spend most of your time critisizing the open view when that is not the big problem (with regard to these issues). But of course you may not see it that way, and thats why I'm here. Not that I think I can guarantee that any one see things in other ways, but I certainly intend to try.

How can it be otherwise, though, if knowing a future decision makes it not free?

I don't see how holding that knowledge of the outcome of a decision is inconsistent with it being free means that all free decisions have to be spur of the moment. That is what I was responding to. Ithink you lost track of the discussion. Decisions can be long and drawn out. And then there are decisions made with varying degrees of resolve, thus some can be redecided (while others can't).

That's a good point, but Scripture does refer to events before creation, as if there was time before the moment of creation:

That's fine by me. Some philosophers would be adept at explaining these verses with a view that says that there was no time prior to creation, but I have no reason to grind their axe. As long as they hold that God is in time now, they can hold whatever they want, but I in fact prefer to think of God as existing everlastingly with an infinite past of temporal sequence that has no beginning.

And isn't "how God would choose in a given situation" a present fact about God?

when their is such a fact, it is a present fact about God. But there's no reason that there has to be such a fact, except for the fact that there is no current fact about how God would choose in a specific situation. And such a fact is articulated with a conjoined might counterfactual. "If God were in such a such situation, he might do this and he might not do this". And this is a fact describing not an epistemic situation but rather a metaphysical truth.

lee_merrill

September 7th 2004, 09:49 PM

Hi everyone,

Michael: Was it necessary for God to create?Theologians have held that it was not, that creation was a free decision, in that sense, and that is what I believe, too.

Lee: Which sounds like God develops, and changes, and improves, which is now (I think) process theology, not Open View.

Geebob: It isn't just our developement but God's as well, because for one thing, God forgives us. That is a change. That is a sort of developement (definitely not the sort that implys improvement), a very significant one.I don't think forgiving us changes God, though. God can act in different ways, but in Ezekiel 16, where God describes his bride coming to be, and growing up, the bride changes, but he does not.

Lee: But I am trying to tackle the Open View here.

Geebob: I am puzzled that you spend most of your time critisizing the open view when that is not the big problem (with regard to these issues).Well, I just haven't met too many Arminians, and most of my disagreements have not been with Calvinists, but with the only other alternative, the Open View folks. But I appreciate your replies! And Michael's, and others', too. So tackle me! And post a question about if all can be saved, or predestination, or some other point I have raised.

Geebob: … even the free decisions God has yet to make will not necessarily be spur of the moment. … Decisions can be long and drawn out. And then there are decisions made with varying degrees of resolve, thus some can be redecided (while others can't).Well, what I'm asking, is whenever God decides, however long it takes, then if the decision is known, before the action is taken, then how is that a free action? If foreknowledge makes a decision not free? And I don't expect God would change his mind, if the situation is completely known, in every detail.

Lee: … isn't "how God would choose in a given situation" a present fact about God?

Geebob: … when their is such a fact, it is a present fact about God. But there's no reason that there has to be such a fact … I think that reduces God's omniscience, though. God doesn't know all there is to know about himself…

Blessings,
Lee

themuzicman

September 8th 2004, 08:22 AM

And isn't "how God would choose in a given situation" a present fact about God? And doesn't the Open View hold that God knows all present facts?

What you're saying here is that God must act in a certain way, given certain circumstances.

but you also said:
Michael: Was it necessary for God to create?

Lee: Theologians have held that it was not, that creation was a free decision, in that sense, and that is what I believe, too.

So, it was not necessary that, in the situation that existed before creation for God to create. Thus, what God would do in a given situation is not a present fact!

Michael

geebob

September 8th 2004, 08:08 PM

I don't think forgiving us changes God, though. God can act in different ways, but in Ezekiel 16, where God describes his bride coming to be, and growing up, the bride changes, but he does not

So God forgives us but he doesn't change. I don't know that that has any meaning. To forgive means to go from holding something against someone and then ceasing to do that. So is God still angry with the penitent? Or was he never angry at their sin to begin with?

Maybe that's not the type of change you're thinking of when you deny God changes. But the fact is, it is exactly the kind of change that we are concerned with in this debate. The open view is a rejection of many philosophical ideas in the classical view and the notion that God does not change in any way shape or form is what we are dealing with.

where God describes his bride coming to be, and growing up, the bride changes, but he does not.

What an exciting husband. His creation comes to maturity after his pain staking efforts but it makes no difference to him.

And post a question about if all can be saved, or predestination, or some other point I have raised.

thanks, I just don't have an axe to grind against universalism. All though I don't believe it, I just don't find it apauling. And I know that they can explain scriptures better than what is credited to them. But if I have a question, I will post it.

however long it takes, then if the decision is known, before the action is taken, then how is that a free action?

It remains a free action. It remains a free action in the past, of course God is no longer free with regard to it, but he was free at the relevent point. and that is enough.

If foreknowledge makes a decision not free?

foreknowledge only conflicts with free will if the decision is known before the libertarian moment is satisfied. That is the moment at which one may truely go in one direction, but at the same time he may truely go another way.

And I don't expect God would change his mind, if the situation is completely known, in every detail.

If God plans on the basis of expectations that he knows are not certain (and expectations are not a part of knowledge...they are subjective), and they don't turn out, then although he knew the situation completely, indeterminate parts and all, we clearly have a situation where God may change his mind, even though he knew everything that there was to know about the situation.

I think that reduces God's omniscience, though. God doesn't know all there is to know about himself…

Lee, I'm finding a profound resistence towards the mere understanding of what I'm putting forward (not you specifically, but others in general, but you may be included or you may not and consent to understanding the open view even if you disagree with it). I'm not talking about acceptance and agreement. I'm just speaking of basic acknowledgement understanding to what it is that we are suggesting. There simply is no reduction of omniscience here. Only in a coloquial and superficial sense is this about foreknowledge. This is about the nature of reality. To say that something is not there for God to know is not to say that he doesn't know it. It's to say that there is nothing. Do you know now that while I type this I am wearing a red santa clause suit? I bet you don't and that is not a matter of ignorance because it is simply false. If you knew that I was wearing such a get up, then it would not be knowledge at all since if it isn't true and truth is a necessary aspect of knowledge. now, you may insist that there is a specific fact that is a certain fact about every way in which I or God would act in any given situation. You can insist that, but that doesn't mean that my view diminishes omniscience because I don't accept your view of reality. Knowledge depends upon truth. truth depends on reality. we have different views of reality, hence the requirement for knowledge is different with regard to the certain and uncertain. In your view, omniscience requires knowledge of everything as certain because in your view, everything is in fact certain. so uncertainty always reflects ignorance. In my view, omniscience demands that one be uncertain about which way certain things will turn out because they are in fact metaphysically, ontologically, truely in every way shape and form, undeniably and irreducibly uncertain, and to insist that these events really have a certainty behind them is to simply refuse to understand their nature. In such a view, uncertainty sometimes reflects ignorance, because there are some things that are certain, and other times it reflects knowledge because uncertainty really is an aspect not just of ones epistemic state but a state of much of reality itself.

if you want to insist that the open view reduces omniscience, you can do that, but such a notion only comes from misunderstanding the nature of omniscience and the nature of reality we put forward. You can insist that, but what good is criticism that is not based on understanding?

God doesn't know all there is to know about himself…

you need to back up and reread what I said about conjoined mights. God knows everything. I believe this. He knows everything about himself. Does he know how he'd act in every situation? Well that question is equivalent to me asking you if you have quit beating your wife yet.

That God knows everything about himself means he knows how he'd act in any situation where there is such a specific fact of the matter about how he'd act, and when there isn't such a fact to be known, then God knows, he knows this and he is not ignorant of it, that he might act in one way and he might act in another way. And these sorts of facts are not vacuous by any stretch of the imagination. For instance, he could know the probabilities for all options, he'd know all of the options as their would be a specific number, he'd know everything that might look like an option but is not consistent with either his person, or his previous plans, or how he has conducted himself thus far.

In reality, God needs to know far more with a creation with an open future than a creation with a closed one. With a closed future, an omniscient God only needs to know what will happen. With an open future an omniscient God needs to know exponentially more because when there is no fact about what will specifically happen, there comes to be a wide range of what might happen, all the possible outcomes, the probabilities for each and so on. It is a far more complex and interesting reality and a far more impressive feet of knowledge to know it all, and a far mroe impressive feet of power to bring his ends about inspite of the indeterminism that may work against him.

lee_merrill

September 8th 2004, 09:25 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: And isn't "how God would choose in a given situation" a present fact about God?

Michael: What you're saying here is that God must act in a certain way, given certain circumstances. but you also said:

Lee: Theologians have held that it was not, that creation was a free decision, in that sense, and that is what I believe, too.

Michael: So, it was not necessary that, in the situation that existed before creation for God to create. Thus, what God would do in a given situation is not a present fact!But what I'm trying to decide here, though, is whether a free decision can be known in advance. I'm asking about present facts in this area, in order to decide whether free decisions can be known. Now if free decisions cannot be known, then I agree that we're all done. But I hope that by postponing our conclusion, and examining God's knowledge of his choices, we can understand better what might be possible to know about future decisions.

Geebob: So God forgives us but he doesn't change. I don't know that that has any meaning. To forgive means to go from holding something against someone and then ceasing to do that.
God can change his response! But that doesn't imply a change in his nature. If a lead balloon changes into a helium balloon, the response of nature will be different, but the nature of nature (so to speak) won't have changed.

Geebob: What an exciting husband. His creation comes to maturity after his pain staking efforts but it makes no difference to him.I'm not saying it's not important, or that God doesn't mind about the outcome! I'm just saying us changing doesn't change him, in his being.

Geebob: If God plans on the basis of expectations that he knows are not certain (and expectations are not a part of knowledge...they are subjective), and they don't turn out, then although he knew the situation completely, indeterminate parts and all, we clearly have a situation where God may change his mind…What I'm asking is a little different, though, if we pick one exact possible scenario in the future, completely specified down to the last detail, does God know how he would act, in that situation, if it were to become actual?

Lee: I think that reduces God's omniscience, though. God doesn't know all there is to know about himself…

Geebob: In your view, omniscience requires knowledge of everything as certain because in your view, everything is in fact certain.Actually, I hold that believers can really choose! But that God nevertheless knows how they will choose. And I'm bringing up God knowing his choices, in order to make the conclusion that he knows our choices more plausible.

Geebob: … to insist that these events really have a certainty behind them is to simply refuse to understand their nature.I agree that if God's choices are by definition unknowable even to him, then again, we're all done here. Do we have any indication of a free choice made by God, that was yet known in advance? I think we do:

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

I think we may conclude from this statement that Jesus' decision to go to the cross was a free one, even at this point. Yet Jesus' sacrifice was predicted in Scripture! His decision was known, and yet it was free.

Blessings,
Lee

themuzicman

September 8th 2004, 09:39 PM

Hi everyone,

But what I'm trying to decide here, though, is whether a free decision can be known in advance. I'm asking about present facts in this area, in order to decide whether free decisions can be known. Now if free decisions cannot be known, then I agree that we're all done. But I hope that by postponing our conclusion, and examining God's knowledge of his choices, we can understand better what might be possible to know about future decisions.

But the point is that before God created, there wasn't anything to change His mind, so, if God must act a certain way given a certain set of circumstances, and the circumstances couldn't have changed, then it was necessary for God to create.

But we've agreed that God did not create out of necessity.

Therefore, God's present knowledge before creation didn't include His necessary response to circumstances that required creation. Thus, God's knowledge doesn't include what He will do in a given set of circumstances.

God can change his response! But that doesn't imply a change in his nature. If a lead balloon changes into a helium balloon, the response of nature will be different, but the nature of nature (so to speak) won't have changed.

No one is wanting to change the nature of God.

I'm not saying it's not important, or that God doesn't mind about the outcome! I'm just saying us changing doesn't change him, in his being.

No one is saying that.

Michael

smaller

September 8th 2004, 09:41 PM

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

I think we may conclude from this statement that Jesus' decision to go to the cross was a free one, even at this point. Yet Jesus' sacrifice was predicted in Scripture! His decision was known, and yet it was free.

Blessings,
Lee

Let's presume for a moment that nearly all of our individual pathetic self righteous prayers and pleas and arguments are "sins" and that Jesus took these sins to the cross and said "all these things end right here." I'm not listening anymore. Don't have to. These things are DEAD to me.

I think that was a pretty fair trade off eh?

Just think of all the garbage that is pointed directly to the cross. "I said IT'S FINISHED!" (Thank God!)

This was probably much easier than listening to all the nonsense for thousands of more years. He probably looked forward to the cross. Welcomed it.

Said "get me outta here God!" I can't stand this "drone" any longer!

I think I can somewhat relate to Jesus in this matter. A freewill choice for sure. He knew it in advance 'cause He had to listen to it for the first 4000 years.

He said "I'll settle this stuff once and for ALL." Now where is that BODY?

enjoy!

smaller

lee_merrill

September 9th 2004, 08:39 PM

Hi everyone,

But the point is that before God created, there wasn't anything to change His mind, so, if God must act a certain way given a certain set of circumstances, and the circumstances couldn't have changed, then it was necessary for God to create.Well, that's just the paradox! Everyone agrees that God created the world freely. I think everyone also would say God knew he was going to create the world, before he did actually create it. Thus we have an instance where a free choice was known, before it was made.

Therefore, God's present knowledge before creation didn't include His necessary response to circumstances that required creation. Thus, God's knowledge doesn't include what He will do in a given set of circumstances.But surely the complete situation, at the moment of creation, was a situation God actually considered in advance. So I think the premise here has an aspect that I would disagree with, and so I would need to be convinced of truth of the premise, before I could adopt your conclusion.

Blessings,
Lee

themuzicman

September 9th 2004, 10:14 PM

Hi everyone,

Well, that's just the paradox! Everyone agrees that God created the world freely. I think everyone also would say God knew he was going to create the world, before he did actually create it. Thus we have an instance where a free choice was known, before it was made.

I disagree, with your second statement. I believe that God conceived of the idea to create at some point, and before that point, didn't know that this future situation would result in creation.

Thus, no paradox, but also no sure knowledge of what God would do in a given situation.

But surely the complete situation, at the moment of creation, was a situation God actually considered in advance. So I think the premise here has an aspect that I would disagree with, and so I would need to be convinced of truth of the premise, before I could adopt your conclusion.

Yes, God gave creation some consideration, but it wasn't certain until God decided to actually do it. Again, there is no necessity that God MUST respond to circumstances in a given manner.

Michael

geebob

September 10th 2004, 11:33 AM

hoy Lee

God can change his response! But that doesn't imply a change in his nature.

Lee, you argue much against the open view, and yet you don't understand it. What open theist ever said that God's nature changes? There isn't a single one. That has never been the claim.

But yes God changes his response therefore God is not the timeless immutable being that classical theism paints him as. Perhaps you don't think that God is so timeless and immutable that there can be absolutely no change in him whatsoever as well and therefore our complaints are pointless. I've come across many folks who seem to think that this is a valid line of reasoning. But the problem is that the open view wasn't formed as a response against them. It is formed as a criticism against some very specific claims by many (and definitely not all) of the great minds of the church who wouldn't even allow a change in response from God. They would rather attempt to say that there is no change in God's response but we experience different aspects of God's immutable will when we change...or something like that. (classical theism is a term that has been coined by modern historians of theology and the term is NOT to be confused with a label for orthodoxy or tradition as not all of orthodoxy and the tradition hold to the classical view. The name reflects that it has predominated over much of the tradtion, hence it is "classic," but more specifically, it is probably derived from the greek-classical synthesis where Christian theism and greek philosophy were wed for both great benefit and significant error).

When people react against the open view, they often focus on that one little aspect, very important aspect but a small piece nonetheless of foreknowledge and they fail to see that much of what they believe is something that the open view is working out in consistency. people believe that God forgives them when they repent, that he responds when they pray. They think God is happy when we obey and grieved when we sin. Well that just doesn't fly in the classical view. those are just "anthropomorphisms" for the simple minded, or they are anthropomorphisms for God lisps at us, though ironically those theologians really interpret it as somethin about us and not God. when it is said in scripture that God changes his mind, it's really a statement about how we change in our perspective to God, but then it isn't really anthropomorphic language about God at all but it's really theomorphic language about us. And it's poor theomorphic language about us because God doesn't change, thus change in God doesn't enlighten us as to how we change.

I'm not saying it's not important, or that God doesn't mind about the outcome! I'm just saying us changing doesn't change him, in his being.

No one ever said that God's being proper changes. But we make a difference to God. You cannot say that and hold to strong immutability. (and if you don't hold to strong immutability, then welcome to agreement with the open view on the issue of immutability).

Actually, I hold that believers can really choose!

that isn't an issue with me. Never has it passed from my lips that if we are determined, or our future certain, that we don't have a choice. I simply disagree with the notion that none of our choices are libertarian free because some of our choices (and no need to suggest all) need to be libertarian free for a variety of reasons. None of those reasons require that all of our choices are libertarian free. the nature of libertarian freedom does not require that all of our choices be libertarian free but rather that only some of our choices be free.

What I'm asking is a little different, though, if we pick one exact possible scenario in the future, completely specified down to the last detail, does God know how he would act, in that situation, if it were to become actual?

I'm sorry Lee, you're not asking something different and I've already answered you. Maybe you think you are asking something different, but if that's true, then you haven't articulated it.

The answer is that for some particular situation (though definitely not all) God wouldn't know what would be true about how he would act. And is that because he is ignorant of how he would act? I can't say it enough and it couldn't be ignored more by so many people who only wish to criticize and not understand. God cannot know what is false to be true. That is not knowledge! that's called being decieved. there are some situations in which it is simply both false that God would act in a certain why and false that he wouldn't act in that same certain way. Why? because it is absolutely and umitigatingly true that he MIGHT and MIGHT NOT act in that way and that truth CANNOT yeild or hide a true statement about what God would or would not do.

No, God doesn't know what he would do in any situation because God is not ignorant of the fact that there is no fact about what he would or would not do. And yes, I am speaking of circumstances where God knows exactly everything about the situation including the fact of the matter about his response. And what is that fact of the matter? He might and might not act in a variety of ways.

If the situation were to become actual, it wouldn't be any different. Of course God would eventually make his decision, and then he would know how he will act because the free decision has been made and the libertarian moment has been satisfied. Then the only requirement is that it to have been the case that he might've and might not have acted in a variety of different ways (in other words, the conjoined might is true as a past tense statement about a past tense decision). Libertarian free will only requires an open future after all, not an open past, though a past which can only be understood as times at which the future had been open prior to it becoming the past.

I agree that if God's choices are by definition unknowable even to him, then again, we're all done here. Do we have any indication of a free choice made by God, that was yet known in advance? I think we do:

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

I don't have a problem with this. If Jesus knew the choice he would make, and if it is a free choice, it is only because the libertarian moment has already been satisfied. He won't really be making a new choice. The choice had been made already some time ago. so how is this problem for the open view? It isn't in the slightest if you understand libertarian freedom and that libertarian freedom only requires that there was a libertarian moment and not that such a moment must always persist.

Yet Jesus' sacrifice was predicted in Scripture! His decision was known, and yet it was free.

inas much as it was predicted, it was only predicted because the choice had been made prior to the prediction.

lee_merrill

September 11th 2004, 05:39 PM

Lee: Everyone agrees that God created the world freely. I think everyone also would say God knew he was going to create the world, before he did actually create it. Thus we have an instance where a free choice was known, before it was made.

Michael: I disagree, with your second statement. I believe that God conceived of the idea to create at some point, and before that point, didn't know that this future situation would result in creation.

Geebob: … for some particular situation (though definitely not all) God wouldn't know what would be true about how he would act.Certainly we can't be sure about this area. But what is more likely? That God needed more time to decide? And that it took him up to the last moment, to actually make the decision? I don't think that is the most likely description of what led up to creation.

Are you saying God can never decide, before he acts, if he is making a free decision? Then no prophecies are free decisions, and no promises, either. Such as the new heavens and the new earth! The second creation is not free, though the first one was.

Geebob: No one ever said that God's being proper changes. But we make a difference to God.Yes, we matter to God, we make a difference to God, but we don't make God be inherently different. Glad to agree!

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Geebob: If Jesus knew the choice he would make, and if it is a free choice, it is only because the libertarian moment has already been satisfied. He won't really be making a new choice. The choice had been made already some time ago.But Jesus is saying "I lay it down of my own accord," not "I decided long ago to lay it down." And he has authority, now, and thus, in a sense, it's his decision, now. And the decision is still free! Even now. "Of my own accord…"

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 15th 2004, 01:31 PM

Certainly we can't be sure about this area. But what is more likely? That God needed more time to decide?

I don't see why one would have to think that God needed any amount of time to think and decide. I opened that possibility for what went on in God's mind prior to creation, but that's all it is to me... a possibility. and one which I wouldn't stick to. It's not about time for God to think. It's about the difference that the world makes to God's thinking. The world makes a difference to God. If you don't believe that, you've missed one of the greatest claims of judeo-christianity.

I don't think that is the most likely description of what led up to creation.

fine by me. to suggest that there was an amount of time prior to creation and after God's decision to create suggests that there was a metric of time prior to creation, and that's just not something we have any reason to commit to one way or another. And likewise, it's reasonable that some sort of metric was simply a part of God, but your insistence is still no less more likely, that God decided and then waited to create! Well I don't know that you meant to suggest such a thing, but your suggestion that God knew well in advance that he would create prior (implicit by your objection to the notion that he knew only at the moment prior to creating) to creating simply begs the question, why would he wait? why wouldn't he create as soon he knew he was going to create. Did he have to wait for some angel to get back from builder's square? There just is no reason to be dogmatic either way. it's something we cannot know.

but here's where I am dogmatic. God didn't always know that he would create because God is a free being, and more importantly, God is ontologically independent from creation. So to insist that God always knew that he would create makes create an eternally necessary aspect of God's will and I find that dubious and contrary to God's ontological independence and freedom regarding creation.

God really could have continued to exist without a creation. We are contingent upon him and not necessary to him.

Are you saying God can never decide, before he acts, if he is making a free decision? Then no prophecies are free decisions, and no promises, either. Such as the new heavens and the new earth! The second creation is not free, though the first one was.

yes and no (and more no than yes). I understand how you might get confused with some of what I said. The libertarian moment for an act such as bringing forth the new creation is already finished. That is the moment at which God decided to bring a new heaven and earth. the tail end of the whole free act has not happened yet. In a sense God is no longer free with regard to that act because he can no longer refrain from it. But God freely determined that he would do so. In a sense, the free decision is over with. the point at which God could decide not to make a new creation is over with. But the whole free act, the whole package of delibertion, decision, and action, is not over with because the action has taken place. God is still carrying out what he already freely decided to do.

Now suppose it was the case that God created imeadiately after deciding to create and this isn't the case with the new heaven and earth. Okay. I don't see a problem. asymetries exist in the world and this is one of them. I don't see it as a significant one.

But Jesus is saying "I lay it down of my own accord," not "I decided long ago to lay it down."

I don't see any inconsistency between the two. That Jesus lays down his life of his own accord is his own tells us nothing of when he freely decided to do this.

And the decision is still free!

no, the decision has been made. Or if he makes a decision anew, it is in consistency with his former resolve. And I see no reason why I have to call that new decision (if there was such a one) free. It's still a decision of "his own accord". Just because what it was of "his own accord" was decided previously makes it no less "of his own accord". A new decision in consistency with the resolve of an old one may not be strictly free in a libertarian sense, but it was self determined and that is the important thing that libertarianism establishes. That is what makes it of "his own accord".

reasonabledoubt

September 15th 2004, 01:50 PM

Immutability has never meant that God doesn't interact with his creation- or do different things at different times. It has meant, classically, that God's nature does not change. It's mainly concentrated on God's goodness never changing.

And if God is perfect, in each "situation," he will always do the best possible thing- he must, if he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He can't decide at a certain time what he will do, b/c there's only one thing he can ever do- the perfect thing.

Race is considered an immutable trait, since there is nothing one can do to change being black to white, for example. Sex also used to be considered immutable, but now there are sex change operations, so that's debatable. In the same way, God is immutable. His traits are omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. Those traits cannot change, cannot be changed, and God must and does always act according to those traits.

lee_merrill

September 15th 2004, 09:29 PM

Hi everyone,

Geebob: … but your insistence is still no less more likely, that God decided and then waited to create!We do have verses like that, though:

Romans 2:4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

1 Peter 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Geebob: … why would he wait? why wouldn't he create as soon he knew he was going to create. Did he have to wait for some angel to get back from builder's square?I think there were angels before creation (Job 38:7). So your point may not be so far off! God may have had other purposes, which concerned them, which required some delay.

Geebob: So to insist that God always knew that he would create makes create an eternally necessary aspect of God's will and I find that dubious and contrary to God's ontological independence and freedom regarding creation.Now you are begging the question, though, the question I am raising is whether God can know his future free decisions, such as in creation. Certainly if knowing a decision makes it eternally necessary, then it's not free. But that is just what I am trying to explore here.

Lee: Are you saying God can never decide, before he acts, if he is making a free decision? Then no prophecies are free decisions, and no promises, either. Such as the new heavens and the new earth! The second creation is not free, though the first one was.

Geebob: … suppose it was the case that God created immediately after deciding to create and this isn't the case with the new heaven and earth. Okay. I don't see a problem. asymmetries exist in the world and this is one of them.I you don't mind that, there's not a whole bunch I can say…

Lee: But Jesus is saying "I lay it down of my own accord"…

Geebob: … it was self determined and that is the important thing that libertarianism establishes. That is what makes it of "his own accord".It seems you are saying "of my own accord" means "willingly." Well, let's examine other places where Jesus uses this expression:

John 12:49 "For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it."

John 5:30 "I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge…"

Now these verses cannot mean "I did not speak willingly," or "I can do nothing willingly." I believe the meaning here is "What I said did not come from me as the source." So now I would conclude that Jesus meant "I lay down my life with me being the real source of that decision." Which makes it free, I think.

RD: Immutability has never meant that God doesn't interact with his creation- or do different things at different times. It has meant, classically, that God's nature does not change. It's mainly concentrated on God's goodness never changing.I would insist that God's response can change, yet his nature does not. But we are getting off topic with this concern, but maybe I am misunderstanding your point…

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 16th 2004, 04:34 PM

lee,

We do have verses like that, though:

Romans 2:4 Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?

1 Peter 3:20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

Lee, you're all over the place here. I was speaking of creation. THE CREATION. not creation of the new world. these verses have little to do with creation. There was no fall prior to creation.

I think there were angels before creation (Job 38:7). So your point may not be so far off! God may have had other purposes, which concerned them, which required some delay.

Lee, I was joking about the angels. There is little reason to think angels had much of anything to do with God's waiting to create or not. As for delay, you are far into the world of speculation that has no force of reason. there is no reason to think that God delayed creation after his decision. There is no reason to think that he created immeadiately after. there is just speculation...except for what i've told you. to think that there was "time" before creation assumes there was a metric of time. There may or may not have been.

Now you are begging the question, though, the question I am raising is whether God can know his future free decisions, such as in creation.

no it's not begging the question because I presume libertarian free will where you do not. you hold to compatibilistic free will. then again maybe I'm wrong, but I thought you were a determinist.

But if that is the case, the question you ask is really pointless. If you don't subscribe to my view of freedom, it holds no water for you to take a dogmatic stance against my view speaking of "freedom" without consciously discussing what kind you believe in.

Also, your specific question doesn't really address the problem of libertarian freedom and foreknowledge. you cite examples but examples won't cut it as I can either reinterpret your examples or simply say "no, this person wasn't free at that point and I don't have a problem with that...I don't have to be commited to the idea that all decisions are free".

If you really want to challenge us on the issue of freedom and foreknowledge, you have to deal with the specific philosophical arguements on freedom (libertarian freedom) and foreknowledge or you have to find better examples where we have to commit to the notion that a decision has to be libertarian free. But alas, I have already dealt with one of the best counter examples you could find. Peter denied christ and that was an imoral thing for him to do, thus freedom must be involved. But I've already nuanced the issue of the importance of freedom to morality. the imeadiate decision does not have to be free. It can be determined by character HOWEVER, the character that lead to that bad choice MUST have been formed by bad libertarian free decisions.

I you don't mind that, there's not a whole bunch I can say…

excellent. meditate upon what I have said to which this was a response for and further criticism of yours may carry more weight if you still have some.

Now these verses cannot mean "I did not speak willingly," or "I can do nothing willingly." I believe the meaning here is "What I said did not come from me as the source." So now I would conclude that Jesus meant "I lay down my life with me being the real source of that decision." Which makes it free, I think.

you can think that. but it carries no weight for criticism against may view because I don't consider that enough for libertarian freedom. BUT libertarian freedom was in the background, hence we have self determinism. And (as I have said before and as I repeat this I would LIKE for you to take note) self determinism, that is unique self determinism is the important thing that libertarian freedom establishes.

reasonable doubt,

Immutability has never meant that God doesn't interact with his creation- or do different things at different times. It has meant, classically, that God's nature does not change. It's mainly concentrated on God's goodness never changing.

with all do respect, I will take from the great minds of the church the definition of immutability because that is what is relevent to this debate, and that is that all of God's acts are simultaneous and they are not in temporal sequence. their effects may be in time, but God's actions are not, and anything he has ever done is still forever something that he is doing.

If you want to subscribe to something less then that picture, weak immutability, great, so do the open theists.

And if God is perfect, in each "situation," he will always do the best possible thing- he must, if he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent. He can't decide at a certain time what he will do, b/c there's only one thing he can ever do- the perfect thing.

I see no reason to hold to such a notion of perfection. many different decisions may be equally perfect. it is a blind and unfounded faith (certainly not founded in scripture) that suggests otherwise.

In the same way, God is immutable. His traits are omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and omniscience. Those traits cannot change, cannot be changed, and God must and does always act according to those traits.

that is entailed by weak immutability and hence is not a source of contention in the debate between openness and classical theism. open theists hold to weak immutability where God acts in consistency with his immutable characteristics of love, righteousness, justice, holyness and so on. Of course I don't agree with you on the necessity of the traits you describe(excluding omnibenevolence), because jesus was fully God and he was not any of those things (he was not omnipotent and he was not omniscient and he denied knowing some things), but nevertheless, what you describe above is just as much entailed by weak immutability. It is consistent for God to be omnipotent, and omniscient, immutable so and to forgive sin. thus strong immutability is not entailed here. Of course classical theists also think God could forgive sin, but they were inconsistent (and of course I can say this because it is almost always the major reason for criticizing any view). God is not immutably angry with specific sinners. He may forgive them. Thus he is not completely and entirely immutable.

lee_merrill

September 16th 2004, 10:10 PM

Hi Geebob,

Geebob: … there is no reason to think that God delayed creation after his decision.I think there is, though!

1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I think this verse implies that this implication of creation was considered, and ratified in some way, before creation actually occurred.

Geebob: I presume libertarian free will where you do not. you hold to compatibilistic free will.Not me! I hold that believers can make real choices within God's will, and unbelievers cannot choose at all. So I'm in between these two positions.

Lee: Certainly if knowing a decision makes it eternally necessary, then it's not free. But that is just what I am trying to explore here.

Geebob: … your specific question doesn't really address the problem of libertarian freedom and foreknowledge. you cite examples but examples won't cut it as I can either reinterpret your examples or simply say "no, this person wasn't free at that point and I don't have a problem with that...I don't have to be commited to the idea that all decisions are free".I do think most folks have held that God's acts are free, insofar as they are constrained by being both moral and logical. God is not free to sin, or to make a square circle, but he is free when he acts consistently. Most people would not say that God is forced now to create the new earth. If not, we still know he will do it! Thus this free act is known beforehand. How about this verse, too?

Amos 3:7 Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

Now none of God's acts are free when he does them! I don't think that will do.

Geebob: Peter denied Christ and that was an immoral thing for him to do, thus freedom must be involved. … the character that lead to that bad choice MUST have been formed by bad libertarian free decisions.I don't think that's certain, though! I'm not sure in Peter's case, because I believe believers can use their freedom to drive into the ditch. In either case, there are extraordinary difficulties with holding that Jesus was just predicting here! Again, he was predicting that Peter's courage and cowardice would balance! And not go all one way or the other, even under great pressure. That the people challenging him would not arrest him, that the doorkeeper would let him in, and all in one night.

Lee: Now these verses cannot mean "I did not speak willingly," or "I can do nothing willingly." I believe the meaning here is "What I said did not come from me as the source." So now I would conclude that Jesus meant "I lay down my life with me being the real source of that decision." Which makes it free, I think.

Geebob: … it carries no weight for criticism against my view because I don't consider that enough for libertarian freedom. BUT libertarian freedom was in the background, hence we have self determinism. … unique self determinism is the important thing that libertarian freedom establishes.That's just what I'm saying, though! Jesus is saying he is the source, even up to that moment, of his foreknown decision to lay down his life for us.

Blessings,
Lee

freelight

September 16th 2004, 11:47 PM

Greetings all,

Interesting coverage here. It would appear that within the omniscience of divine Consciousness.....all possibilities/potentials of reality exist - this includes the freedom of thought/choice/action. As far as creation is concerned.....one could explore the metaphysics of Mind as there may be a process of manifestation from conception to the actual matter-ialization of something....as it is imagined in Mind. This process may include some concept of time within its procedure.

As far as Gods omniscience is concerned...I have currently held that God is knowing and is coming to know all things as they unfold in Consciousness. This implies that there are some things that God does not fully, perfectly know in the potentially flexible future.

Foreknowledge of potential events/outcomes/possibilities does not prevent free will liberties.....for there always 'appears' to be an element of freedom in analysis before determining a certain course/choice/action.

Foreknowledge to me has always meant a 'knowing' of some thing/event as a potential reality that could be manifested as an actuality. For instance....'He foreknew us, predestined us, etc.' refers simply to his knowledge of us and his intention for us in his vision of reality, the vision of His will for us.

I concur with some of the logics of geebob so far.

lee,....do you feel so far that your original inquiry has been satisfied? Where are you currently at now in the flow of the subject at hand?

:smile:
shalom,

paul

lee_merrill

September 17th 2004, 01:58 PM

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply...

As far as Gods omniscience is concerned...I have currently held that God is knowing and is coming to know all things as they unfold in Consciousness. This implies that there are some things that God does not fully, perfectly know in the potentially flexible future.
Now I am wondering what this includes, though? Just future human free choices? But God predicts salvations! What is it that cannot possibly be known?

'He foreknew us, predestined us, etc.' refers simply to his knowledge of us and his intention for us in his vision of reality, the vision of His will for us.
I agree! Though I'm not sure, there might be more here, too.

lee,....do you feel so far that your original inquiry has been satisfied?
I think there's more work to do, I would like to continue discussing, and would be interested in how people might repond to the questions raised in the previous post I made...

Blessings,
Lee

freelight

September 17th 2004, 03:38 PM

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your reply...

Now I am wondering what this includes, though? Just future human free choices? But God predicts salvations! What is it that cannot possibly be known?

Blessings,
Lee

Hi lee,

Perhaps God predicts salvations because he knows that it is likely that some souls will choose to be saved. All souls who continue in accordance with divine Will....will acquire salvation naturally. Does God also 'predict' damnation for some? Soul destinies are foreknown to God generally...for he knows all potential outcomes determined by free will liberties. He beholds the pleasure of His will and offers salvation to all - he knows the beginning and end of all things....for He is the very Ground of Being in which all things are ever transpiring - He also intimately knows all laws of mind and spirit that govern the souls station, condition and destiny. While transcendentally we can say He is omniscient.....He is still 'coming to know' things as they become actual in time. Therefore He does not have exhaustive knowledge of those things which are not yet(actual).....but retains the knowing of all potentials/possibilities in existence.

God can only know what is knowable. He cannot know the unknowable. God can still be considered transcendentally omniscient and still not know the unknowable. In an open-ended Universe we must acknowledge this element of uncertainity as an inherent novelty in the evolution of LIFE.

paul

lee_merrill

September 17th 2004, 11:26 PM

Hi Paul,

Perhaps God predicts salvations because he knows that it is likely that some souls will choose to be saved.I don't think that will do for "all Israel will be saved", though (Rom. 11:26). And "God chose the weak" (1 Cor. 1:27), implying that it will for sure be mostly weak people who come, thus it is not ultimately up to us and our decision.

Does God also 'predict' damnation for some?Yes, he does!

Romans 9:27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved…"

1 Peter 2:8 They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.

These cover all people, too, not just a few here and there, and also predict salvation decisions for people not even born yet.

While transcendentally we can say He is omniscient.....He is still 'coming to know' things as they become actual in time. Therefore He does not have exhaustive knowledge of those things which are not yet(actual).....but retains the knowing of all potentials/possibilities in existence.But these predictions are not just possibilities! God is saying how it will indeed turn out, and in the area where the Open View says God will not make this decision for someone.

Isaiah 46:10 Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things which have not been done, Saying, 'My purpose will be established, And I will accomplish all My good pleasure'.

This is a general statement! "All my good pleasure," "the end from the beginning," not "some end from some beginning."

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 19th 2004, 12:59 PM

I think there is, though!

1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

I think this verse implies that this implication of creation was considered, and ratified in some way, before creation actually occurred.

I fail to see this indicates a significant delay. A molinist could easily account for this in terms of logical sequence as opposed to temporal sequence. And again, if there was a delay, that's fine by me. it's not like there's any biblical evidence for it one way or another. This verse doesn't consistitute evidence for it in any way shape or form. You don't even have to suggest the molinist account. There's no reason to suggest that such a decision of God took any amount of duration at all, (once again, perpetually taking for granted that there was any significant metric at all before creation).

Not me! I hold that believers can make real choices within God's will, and unbelievers cannot choose at all. So I'm in between these two positions.

every non christian I know goes through a process of deliberation and decision making.

Of course saying that they don't have a choice doesn't put you in between lfw and compatibilism. It makes you even more extreme than the compatibilists.

and saying that you think beleivers make real choices within God's will doesn't distinguish you from compatibilists. Compatibilists say the same exact thing. But insisting that having a choice, a real choice makes one free does have sympathies with some libertarians. But not me. I have no problem with saying that some choices aren't free and yet they are choices amongst options.

Most people would not say that God is forced now to create the new earth. If not, we still know he will do it! Thus this free act is known beforehand. How about this verse, too?

Well this is another sympathy with libertarians, but I find it bad. to think that one is not free means he is "forced" is unfounded. God is not forced to create a new earth because he made the free choice to make it a long time ago.

And I already mentioned that it is in a sense a free action. What sense is that? it is the tail end of a free action and not the whole thing. It is the tail end of the free action because the moment at which he could have refrained has passed. The whole of the free action involves deliberation, decision, and action. He can no longer refrain in light of his promises to us and his love and integrity and his free decision. His free action with regard to creating the new world is not complete. The part at which the future had to be open and "unknowable" (in quotes for reasons I describe in the other thread in which I've responded to you that is most current as of this writing) is over and hence no longer an issue. prior to that moment, there was no truth about whether God would make a new creation or not. After that moment, there was.

In a sense God's action will not be free. What sense is that? a more technical and precise sense regarding the anatomy of freedom. That anatomy involves a moment at which the future is open. It does not require that that moment is perpetual and forever. that would be nonsense and it simply isn't a part of the open view at all and there's no reason for it to be part of the open view.

I don't think that's certain, though! I'm not sure in Peter's case, because I believe believers can use their freedom to drive into the ditch. In either case, there are extraordinary difficulties with holding that Jesus was just predicting here! Again, he was predicting that Peter's courage and cowardice would balance! And not go all one way or the other, even under great pressure. That the people challenging him would not arrest him, that the doorkeeper would let him in, and all in one night.

I don't understand how this is a response to what I wrote. It was more than a prediction. Ok. people would challenge him but not arrest him. Ok. The doorkeep would let him in. Ok. He would be ballenced under great pressure. I don't know what that means.

but none of this seems to tell decisively against the picture I paint.

That's just what I'm saying, though! Jesus is saying he is the source, even up to that moment, of his foreknown decision to lay down his life for us.

right. That doesn't mean we have to say he was free at that very precise moment. Or I could say what I've already said. it was the tail end of the free act and did not require an open future, hence was certain and knowable. Did the future have to be open at all? at some point, with regard to Jesus agreement to lay down his life, it did. but that point has passed.

Lee, lets not lose site of what you are attempting. You want to say that this provides a counterexample to the open view of freedom and the requirement of an open future. It doesn't because the open view of freedom is flexible enough to allow for complexities in freedom that can accomodate this picture. we don't have to say that every act is free, every self determined act is free at the moment. Or we can as I just pointed out refer to a more complex view of freedom that distinguishes the moment of openness from going through the motions of the act.

lee_merrill

September 19th 2004, 06:00 PM

Hi Geebob,

You skipped my new point here! Here it is again, second times a charm:

Amos 3:7 Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

Lee: Now none of God's acts are free when he does them!Do you really want to subscribe to this implication? If my conclusion is correct here…

Geebob: That anatomy involves a moment at which the future is open. It does not require that that moment is perpetual and forever. that would be nonsense and it simply isn't a part of the open view at all and there's no reason for it to be part of the open view.Now I will ask you when decisions may be made, though, and on what basis God might decide at one time, and not another. Not that I'm asking you to actually explain God's ways to me! But I'm just trying to examine implications of saying a decision can be made at one moment, and then it becomes fixed, and the act is not free, when the decision is carried out.

Geebob: Peter denied Christ and that was an immoral thing for him to do, thus freedom must be involved.

Lee: there are extraordinary difficulties with holding that Jesus was just predicting here!

Geebob: Ok. He would be balanced under great pressure. I don't know what that means.

but none of this seems to tell decisively against the picture I paint.Well, I do think there is an implication here, that if Peter's decision was not known, because it was free, then Jesus must have been predicting. Thus if we can show that Jesus pretty certainly was not predicting, then we have to say Peter's decision was known, regardless of whether it was free. I hold it was free, and known, both! And I think the evidence points that way.

Lee: Jesus is saying he is the source, even up to that moment, of his foreknown decision to lay down his life for us.

Geebob: That doesn't mean we have to say he was free at that very precise moment.I think it does, though! How could Jesus be the source, at that moment, of a decision that was not free, at that moment? He should have said, "I decided to lay it down of my own accord," according to the interpretation you are presenting here.

Geebob: we don't have to say that every act is free, every self determined act is free at the moment. Or we can as I just pointed out refer to a more complex view of freedom that distinguishes the moment of openness from going through the motions of the act.I agree that I don't have a proof! Just trying to weigh the evidence, and examine the implications…

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 19th 2004, 07:55 PM

Do you really want to subscribe to this implication? If my conclusion is correct here…

your really going to have to absorb what I've said about the anatomy of the free choice. (which may be in the other thread). the answer is there.

but I would like to point something out... though I am loath to do it sense no one wants to understand the word. Hyperbole. does God really reveal absolutely everything he does to his prophets? Good grief, how finite our God is if everything he has done is contained in our little bible.

Even John says that there isn't space in the world for books recording everything Jesus did.

Now I will ask you when decisions may be made, though, and on what basis God might decide at one time, and not another. Not that I'm asking you to actually explain God's ways to me! But I'm just trying to examine implications of saying a decision can be made at one moment, and then it becomes fixed, and the act is not free, when the decision is carried out.

there's just no reason for me to be dogmatic on any such answer. I say that there are some decisions God has left for later because that's what we see in scripture. We see it in exodus. We see it in the prophets. At one point God says of rebellious israel "what am I going to do with you?" I don't have specifics to give you nor do I need any. positions don't have to go into specifics to be valid and solid in terms of support. But I have given you an excellent rational for this. We make a difference to God. Our actual existence is significant to God's thinking. And that's the way God wanted it. He wanted a creation that he could really enjoy (and love, which made for the potential that he could really grieve over it). God is powerful enough to make something that makes an impact on himself (including his thought). But oddly, many christians do not think that God is this powerful.

But I'm just trying to examine implications of saying a decision can be made at one moment, and then it becomes fixed, and the act is not free, when the decision is carried out.

see, you're not paying attention to nuance. Here, I'll tell you it's not entirely your fault because I have not been consistent in articulation. But I have indicated to you that there was more than one way to articulate the issue. A free action according to the libertarian, me, who's view you are critisizing thus must allow him to define freedom when you critisize his consistency with his claims about freedom, is an action that one may refrain from and that he may take. Both are really possible. Both are possible in absolutely every way shape and form. And of course to insist that one option is knowable is to violate that standard because it is not possible to do other than what is known will be done, since knowledge is truth and if you do other than what is true that you would do, it wasn't really true that you would do it to begin with.

But although freedom entails this, it is more complex in that this is only a part. Not all parts have to have this feature. there must be this point. after this point is passed, then this aspect of freedom has been satisfied.

thus I could articulate it this way (and as a matter of fact, I have articulated it this way). A free act may be knowable (as certain)...AFTER the libertarian moment when all options were possible has passed. before this, it must be knowable as open and unresolved.

Well, I do think there is an implication here, that if Peter's decision was not known, because it was free, then Jesus must have been predicting.

you must be responding to someone else. I believe that Jesus knew peter's action and that peter's action wasn't free at the time. But he was responsible for the action because his actions arose from his character which he had freely determined previously.

this is all I have time for. chow.

lee_merrill

September 21st 2004, 10:10 PM

Hi Geebob,

Amos 3:7 Surely the Sovereign Lord does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets.

Lee: Now none of God's acts are free when he does them! Do you really want to subscribe to this implication? If my conclusion is correct here…

Geebob: Hyperbole. does God really reveal absolutely everything he does to his prophets?Well, what comes outside of this statement, then? What does it not include, (let us say) in principle? I think in principle, it includes everything God does, and who can say what God can tell his people?

2 Corinthians 12:4 He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

Maybe God tells Elijahs in heaven before he acts, sometimes! And maybe they have more capacity to hear, than we can imagine.

But we do have to say that none of the acts implied by "will do nothing," are free now, if knowledge removes freedom. And again, I wonder if this is an implication that you want to have here…

Lee: Now I will ask you when decisions may be made, though, and on what basis God might decide at one time, and not another.

Geebob: … At one point God says of rebellious israel "what am I going to do with you?" I don't have specifics to give you nor do I need any.Well, if we can't think of a reason for God to delay a decision, maybe that indicates that this position is not solid. If we can come up with unsatisfactory implications, and questions that can't be answered, then that's a noise that indicates that maybe we should stop the car, and look under the hood.

Geebob: … to insist that one option is knowable is to violate that standard because it is not possible to do other than what is known will be done, since knowledge is truth and if you do other than what is true that you would do, it wasn't really true that you would do it to begin with.Then Jesus was mistaken, when he said "I lay my life down [now], being [now] the source of that decision." I agree that this is a mystery! But I think Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he thought there still could be a real alternative:

Mark 14:36 "Abba, Father," he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 24th 2004, 01:37 PM

Well, what comes outside of this statement, then? What does it not include, (let us say) in principle? I think in principle, it includes everything God does, and who can say what God can tell his people?

2 Corinthians 12:4 He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell.

Maybe God tells Elijahs in heaven before he acts, sometimes! And maybe they have more capacity to hear, than we can imagine.

revelation and prophecy is meant to be useful and in the context in which amos spoke this, there is no use in bringing up saints who have died or who have been taken in to heaven to no longer give prophecies here on earth.

And I don't think God has given the whole of any of his creatures the omniscience to know absolutely everything he does. Do you really want to hold to the notion that the saints and church on earth and in heaven are collectively omniscient? there is simply no point in that except to really want an unlikely and useless interpretation of a scripture to be true.

But we do have to say that none of the acts implied by "will do nothing," are free now, if knowledge removes freedom. And again, I wonder if this is an implication that you want to have here…

why? you couldn't say that with the picture I've painted. it is complex enough to handle this issue of God foretelling what he will freely do. I have explained to you the anatomy of libertarian free will. Why do you refuse to deal with that if you are going to criticize my picture.

Lee why do you converse like this? I have complained several times now that you don't pay attention to detail in my explanation so I ask you what is the point? What is the piont in discussing this when you read only what you want to read and continue to critize with no regard to the criticisms that have been answered?

One can miss a few things some of the time reasonably but you are chronic. Almost every post you write ignores something I've already explained.

If you don't find those explanations adequate THEN DEAL WITH THOSE PRECISE EXPLANATIONS DIRECTLY!

Well, if we can't think of a reason for God to delay a decision, maybe that indicates that this position is not solid.

I've told you the reason. What I don't have are specific rationals for very specific situations. I don't need specific rational. A general rational, that we make a difference to God is enough plus examples from scripture are enough. Exodus 32 is my prime example.

And the lack of specifics, principals by which God would determine which decisions he will make in terms of counterfactuals and which decisions he will wait to make later in no way shape or form castes doubt on this view. If such were the case, we would never make scientific progress as in science, such details do not have to be filled in right away. In digestion, some fod may be digested quickly and other foods may not be. that may simply be the emprical fact. Does a scientist have to know which foods speed up or slow down digestion to make this observation? absolutely not. He may investigate it and find out the answer, but such an answer may come a long time after making the general observations. He may have a general explanation (like I have given in our topic) and it may be vindicated, or perhaps not. But that he doesn't know the specifics doesn't invalidate his model.

Then Jesus was mistaken, when he said "I lay my life down [now], being [now] the source of that decision." I agree that this is a mystery! But I think Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he thought there still could be a real alternative:

I don't see what I said invalidates Jesus statement. But of course what I said was a simplified view of free will with regard to an open future and doesn't refer to the whole anatomy.

And until you put two and two together with the anatomy of free will, you aren't going to have a valid criticism.

Soundsurfr

September 24th 2004, 02:08 PM

Not me! I hold that believers can make real choices within God's will, and unbelievers cannot choose at all.
Good. Then we can't be held accountable. :sigh:

lee_merrill

September 25th 2004, 02:09 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: … what comes outside of this statement [in Amos 3:7], then? What does it not include, (let us say) in principle? I think in principle, it includes everything God does, and who can say what God can tell his people?

Geebob: revelation and prophecy is meant to be useful and in the context in which amos spoke this, there is no use in bringing up saints who have died or who have been taken in to heaven to no longer give prophecies here on earth.I don't think it will do to say God doesn't speak about his plans in heaven, though.

1 Kings 22:19-20 "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the Lord said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' "

Geebob: And I don't think God has given the whole of any of his creatures the omniscience to know absolutely everything he does.Certainly we are not omniscient! But I do believe God will tell us anything and everything we can ask:

John 15:15 … for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

1 John 2:27 But as his anointing teaches you about all things …

So I think all God does, in principle, he will tell us, and in some sense, he does tell his servants, I would rather not water down Amos 3:7, and limit God's ability to reveal all his plans, because we don't understand how he could literally do this.

Lee: … we do have to say that none of the acts implied by "will do nothing," are free now, if knowledge removes freedom. And again, I wonder if this is an implication that you want to have here…

Geebob: why? you couldn't say that with the picture I've painted.Well, I think this verse does not fit well in your view, and though you have raised objections to the apparent meaning of Amos 3:7, you haven't convinced me that "will do nothing" means "will do some things," which is what I think you are requiring here. Just stating our view doesn't explain this verse! We have to fit it in, and say what it means.

Geebob: If you don't find those explanations adequate THEN DEAL WITH THOSE PRECISE EXPLANATIONS DIRECTLY!I am trying to address your comments directly, but indeed I can't always remember everything that has been said. Sometimes I find myself in these discussions, preparing a response, and then realizing that I can't remember why this particular point was being discussed in the first place! So do remind me if I forget, and my apology if (when) I mess up.

Lee: … if we can't think of a reason for God to delay a decision, maybe that indicates that this position is not solid.

Geebob: A general rational, that we make a difference to God is enough plus examples from scripture are enough. Exodus 32 is my prime example.I don't think us making a difference to God accounts for a delay in a decision, though! Not about a possible, fully described situation. And with Exodus 32, if God changed his overall plan, that means he decided! Not that he delayed his decision. So I don't think this passage speaks to this question, either. Why would God delay a decision about what to do in any completely described situation? I can see no clear reason why there should be a delay sometimes.

Lee: Then Jesus was mistaken, when he said "I lay my life down [now], being [now] the source of that decision." I agree that this is a mystery! But I think Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he thought there still could be a real alternative…

Geebob: I don't see what I said invalidates Jesus statement. But of course what I said was a simplified view of free will with regard to an open future and doesn't refer to the whole anatomy.

And until you put two and two together with the anatomy of free will, you aren't going to have a valid criticism.I'm not sure what you are saying here, though, it seems here we have a clear example of a known decision, which was yet free, and it even appears that Jesus thought there were real alternatives, up to the very moment of his prayer in the garden. But if you want to explain more of your view in this area, I would be glad to discuss it.

Lee: I hold that believers can make real choices within God's will, and unbelievers cannot choose at all.

Soundsurfr: Then we can't be held accountable.Yes, we can!

Leviticus 4:27 If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty.

Luke 12:48 But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows.

But not no blows at all…

But I also would point to God bearing affliction, suffering, and even sin, he does not simply ordain sinful actions, and then punish them, he carries the load himself…

Blessings,
Lee

Soundsurfr

September 26th 2004, 10:32 PM

Leviticus 4:27 If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty.
It's not possible for unbelievers to make choices, but they're guilty nonetheless.

That's one of many things that I just marvel about with regard to Christianity.

lee_merrill

September 28th 2004, 08:33 PM

It's not possible for unbelievers to make choices, but they're guilty nonetheless.

That's one of many things that I just marvel about with regard to Christianity.
And God also bears sin and suffering too. That's marvelous!

Blessings,
Lee

mattbballman19

September 28th 2004, 10:19 PM

Soundsurfr,

To your, "It's not possible for unbelievers to make choices, but they're guilty nonetheless."

This is most puzzling to me. I am aware this is a fundamental tenet in Calvinistic theology and was probably said where the truth of Calvinism (or some such deterministic/compatiblistic theology) was taken for granted. I cannot find it within myself to accept it. Let's look at the word 'guilty' and what it could possibly mean. If you're guilty of something, what has to hold, or what else has to be the case, so that a paradigm case of guilt is evident for us? I'm leaving aside for the moment cultural considerations that would render 'guilt' irrelevant. As an example, we can look at the society of ancient Israel and discover that the concept of 'guilt' did not exist, just as 'individualism' did not exist (as it does here). Their society, as J.P. Holding does a great job expounding, and the 'context group' (Malina, Wright, Witherington III, et. al.) is doing a thorough job publishing reams of material, was an honor/shame society.

I want to set this aside lest any theological understanding of the word be passed over, and lest your meaning render 'social context' considerations superfluous.

I assume by 'guilt' you mean that state in a creature, given, or inherited (by Adam's sperm or some other means), by and/or through Adam, which automatically pronounces the state of the creature's soul as sinful, and, thus, guilty. By sinful, we mean, probably, a congenital and thus (probably, of course, since I'm speculating) necessary propensity for sinful behavior. By sinful behavior we mean that behavior that performs actions and, thus, choices, contrary to our intended standard of behavior set down by God within our hearts in the form of individual consciences: the choices being unconscious, or, perhaps, conscious, rebellion against the Holy One. Either way, we are rebelling, which seals our fate of being guilty before a perfect, loving, and absolutely Holy God. I might contest the 'necessity' aspect of the definition I gave; I was merely trying to formulate the definition you may have had in mind.

What would this necessary propensity consist of? Is it like the following: all of mankind is standing at the edge of a cliff; Adam pushes us off, the performance of which we happen to be blissfully ignorant of; we all are now falling; our falling is now a necessary reaction to a prior action undertook by the pusher. Suppose further that the land of the cliff has made it a law that 'falling' is against the law and, if caught, you are guilty. By guilty, I mean 'must suffer the consequences of the law broken'. Suppose further that the 'fallers' think to themselves their falling is fun and want to continue their falling and decide that they would have jumped off the cliff even if Adam hadn't pushed them! This would surely seem to seal their 'guiltyness'. But is this very process of the decision to jump themselves even if Adam had not pushed, if we are to stay faithful to all the intracies involved with total depravity, a parasite of its own, a growth that grew only because we were pushed? If so, our paradigm case of 'guilt' still alludes us. Now, why is this? Two conditions seem to me to be the conditions that must hold if a genuine example of guilt is to present itself before us: 1. A 'free' decision to sin. 2. A 'free' decision to stay in a state of rebellion against God. These conditions obviously do not fit in with the definition I provided earlier: any kind of freedom cannot subsist if a creature's actions be necessitated by the internal state of the creature (this is superficial and I'm aware the literature goes much deeper than my inadequate formulation of it here). Now, why must I include 'freedom'? The word, in theological conversations (such as here on these boards and by much wiser minds than ours on the professional level) seems to be getting worn out. We must be careful not to let a word's being worn out be equivalent to meaningless, however.

If a criminal is guilty of a crime, what do we suppose the criminal had when he perpetrated the crime? I know this analogy may be inadequate, since it lacks all of the theological ramifications inherent in the problem of a sinful nature as such. But could we not equate a lawyer's possible argument ("Your honor, my client was abused as a child, and since society determines a particular person's behavior, my client had no choice in committing the act he in fact committed. The death penalty, therefore, is unwarranted." Basically a rehashing of the nature/nurture debate, but assuming 'nature' be the correct understanding.) with a sinful nature that necessitates the evil/sinful (if they can be put together) actions of a particular creature? If we are to assume the plausibility of the lawyer's argument, how much more should we desire to seek an element of freedom in the decisions of a creature to sin or not? For if the death penalty is the ultimate price one can pay in this life, and Hell is the ultimate price one can pay in the next, then all the factors in the analogy seem to hold. The only way out would be to send the lawyer's client to death, even though he had no choice about the crime. Why are we so concerned about whether there be freedom involved in the case of the lawyer's client, and yet we forget such a factor when speaking of things like sinful natures, total depravity, etc . . . If it is correct to do one thing in a circumstance where that circumstance sufficiently matches that of another circumstance, then how can it be incorrect to not do that same thing in the other circumstance? Unless an enterprising theologian can bring to the light of reason an additional factor that justifies Hell to a person with no choice about his/her sinful actions, will I submit to such a doctrine.

I am sure the answer is obvious, for I confess I overlook important nuances of explanations of positions I find unsavory in the midst of my, sometimes irrational, hold on a position I find, and on some levels, desire to be.

Thanks for the patience in reading what I wrote.

mattd

geebob

September 29th 2004, 03:10 PM

I don't think it will do to say God doesn't speak about his plans in heaven, though.

1 Kings 22:19-20 "I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. And the Lord said, 'Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?' "

this is really a dead end lee. the church is not collectively omniscient. I'm just not going to admit to something so aburd and this latest verse really doesn't do anything to promote this.

and this is just a really desperate attempt at holding to a bad prooftext making it hyperliteral just to prove a point.

so what if God reveals plans to the saints in heaven? I never denied it. I just don't see why that means he reveals absolutely everything he does. sure he reveals some things, perhaps everything significant. It's still not what amos was talking about. that's still far removed from the context and purpose

Certainly we are not omniscient! But I do believe God will tell us anything and everything we can ask

then your point holds no water. If the church doesn't know absolutely everything God does, then God hasn't told the church everything he will do.

I would rather not water down Amos 3:7, and limit God's ability to reveal all his plans, because we don't understand how he could literally do this.

you have watered it down by making it a meaningless philosophical absolute all for the purpose of proving a point that doesn't even prove your more important point.

what if God did tell his prophets everything he would do. that doesn't make it the case that there is a fact of the matter about everything God would do, but only that everything that he would do has been told to his prophets, and when he has made more decisions, he will reveal them to his prophets. but where there is no plan, no fact of the matter, there is nothing for him to reveal. There's nothing for him to reveal until he has made further plans

Well, I think this verse does not fit well in your view, and though you have raised objections to the apparent meaning of Amos 3:7, you haven't convinced me that "will do nothing" means "will do some things," which is what I think you are requiring here. Just stating our view doesn't explain this verse! We have to fit it in, and say what it means.

but you don't know my view. you keep ignoring what I said about the anatomy of freedom. so how can you say something fails to fit my picture.

I have written this already. there are only three pages here. go to "edit" select "find on this page" and look for the word "anatomy". it'll take you two or three searches. then again, I might've spelled it out in the other thread. it won't take you that much more effort if I have. But read what I wrote and take it to heart before critisizing my view and telling me what is consistent and what is not consistent, and if you come up with something I haven't addressed or if it doesn't make sense to you, I'll tell you. but doing things as you do them just isn't going to pass the mustard.

you haven't convinced me that "will do nothing" means "will do some things," which is what I think you are requiring here.

I wouldn't want to convince you of something so odd. for one, it could be an instance of hyperbole in which the emphasis is not on the "some" things because they aren't significant to what the hyperbole conveys (I have already proved that scripture uses hyperbole in the first discussion I've had with you, but no one challenge it. they just ignored the examples and proceeded to misunderstand the thing called hyperbole).

secondly, if there truely is nothing God doesn't reveal to his prophets that are his plans, the plans he hasn't made aren't a part of this... or the contingent plans indicative of an open future are indeed apart of this revelation, thus part of everything that God reveals to his prophets is an open future and includes the items where there is no fact of the matter about what God will do).

I don't think us making a difference to God accounts for a delay in a decision, though! Not about a possible, fully described situation.

okay. don't think that. that you don't think that doesn't consitute an arguement. you can refuse to think that. it is still a powerful and reasonable consideration. you have to support your opinions.

And with Exodus 32, if God changed his overall plan, that means he decided! Not that he delayed his decision.

a change of plan that was fully certain and planned for is not a real change in plans but is in fact a part of the original plan. hence it is not a real change in plan but rather a switch from a bluff and deceit to the real plan.

God delayed making an irreversable decision of "what would I do if israel rebells after I save her from oppression prostituting herself before an idol?" If God made such a decision, it was not set in stone, and he knew it wasn't set in stone. God knows when his decisions are set in stone and when they aren't (and thus he can make any kind of gurantee that he wants consistent with his decisions). And since it wasn't set in stone, he knew of all the possible circumstances in which he might refrain from that plan.

I am trying to address your comments directly, but indeed I can't always remember everything that has been said. Sometimes I find myself in these discussions, preparing a response, and then realizing that I can't remember why this particular point was being discussed in the first place! So do remind me if I forget, and my apology if (when) I mess up.

I did what I recomened to you for anatomy. I searched for it. I explained to you the anatomy of free will. the next thing you said was most certainly not direct. the next thing you asked was for the basis of when decisions may be delayed. but did you absorb what I said (note, I'm not asking you to agree with me when I say absorb, I'm asking you to understand the answers I write for you). and of course I explained why it wasn't important that I didn't have the kind of specific you wanted, because it wasn't. but after that you continued to write as if you hadn't read it. you continue to advance this arguement about God revealing his plans to his prophets. well, my explanation explains this. you coninue to write as if God predicting his decision long before he acts is a problem for my view. well such responses ignore what I said.

I'm not sure what you are saying here, though, it seems here we have a clear example of a known decision, which was yet free, and it even appears that Jesus thought there were real alternatives, up to the very moment of his prayer in the garden. But if you want to explain more of your view in this area, I would be glad to discuss it.

there are a lot of things that an open theist could say about that night (besides telling you to reread my explanation of free will...but that is not enough to answer your question here, so harken unto me for behold, I reveal to you new things that have not yet been discussed...and if you write as if you didn't read what I'm about to write to you, I will make much noise about it as I have been doing). For one, we don't believe Jesus was omniscient. Jesus gave that up when he became human and we stand on solid biblical ground. So he may not have known the absolute necessity of the crucifixion. He knew that was the plan, but coming down to the moment, he was probing whether there was another way. But was that a libertarian moment? (a libertarian moment is a specific part of the libertarian free act and does not consititute the whole act, but it is the part before which there must be no certainty, and every libertarian free act must involve a libertarian moment) I have no reason to hold that it was because Jesus was resolved to do what the Father expected of him. well it could be, but he's making his decision contingent on what the Father tells him (which may or may not involve a libertarian moment at the time... and I don't believe it did, the libertarian moment had already passed for the father, but Jesus without his omniscience may not have fully comprehended that at the time thus he is asking if it is possible that there was another way). So from the son's perspective, there may have been another possibility (an epistemic one, one with regard to a limited perspective and not a real and viable possibility), and if the Father indicated that there was, then maybe the son would have had a real libertarian moment before which his decision could not be predicted. but I don't believe that to be the case. I don't have to believe that to be the case. in the garden of gethsemane, Jesus shows the real strain and stress of the moment and hence wants to explore this,. but the future was closed with regard to this because the father already knew that at the time, there was no other way, hence there was no libertariam moment. Was he free? I can say that, and when you reread what I said about the anatomy of the libertariam free moment, you will be able to say why I can say that. Do I have to commit to the notion that he was free? no I don't. I value flexibility in my responses where I can be flexible and this is one such place. Jesus was self determined and I don't consider that synonomouse with libertarian free. Self determination is enabled by libertarian freedom, but the libertarian free decision may have passed long ago. I really don't have a problem saying that some desicions we think are free aren't really free. but some of these need freedom somewhere in the background if that is the case.

So pay close attention here lee. I haven't given you one specific answer. I gave you at least two different answers right here both of which support the consistency of my view with this instance. If you confuse these two for one, you will be confused.

lee_merrill

September 29th 2004, 10:13 PM

Hi everyone,

Matt: Two conditions seem to me to be the conditions that must hold if a genuine example of guilt is to present itself before us: 1. A 'free' decision to sin. 2. A 'free' decision to stay in a state of rebellion against God.But Scripture seems to say otherwise!

Leviticus 4:27 If a member of the community sins unintentionally and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord's commands, he is guilty.

Geebob: so what if God reveals plans to the saints in heaven? I never denied it. I just don't see why that means he reveals absolutely everything he does. sure he reveals some things, perhaps everything significant. It's still not what amos was talking about.
But then at least we have none of God's significant acts are free when he does them. I do think Amos 3:7 includes at least this, which I think is a difficult implication of holding that foreknowledge prevents freedom.

Lee: … it seems here we have a clear example of a known decision, which was yet free, and it even appears that Jesus thought there were real alternatives, up to the very moment of his prayer in the garden.

Geebob: For one, we don't believe Jesus was omniscient.Yes, but he wasn't mistaken, either! He did indeed seem to think his decision was a free one, and even that there were alternatives open, and yet his decision was known:

Luke 18:31-33 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again."

So I don't have to require omniscience here, I would insist that Jesus knew he would indeed lay his life down, though:

Matthew 26:2 "As you know, the Passover is two days away-- and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified."

I don't believe the plan could change, since it was written in Scripture. But Jesus still prayed as if there were alternatives.

Self determination is enabled by libertarian freedom, but the libertarian free decision may have passed long ago.I do believe Jesus' decision to lay down his life was a free, one, though:

John 10:18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.

Geebob: In a sense God's action will not be free. What sense is that? a more technical and precise sense regarding the anatomy of freedom. That anatomy involves a moment at which the future is open. It does not require that that moment is perpetual and forever.Is this the description that you mentioned? But according to the OV, the future is always open, is it not? Thus all God's decisions are free, for they are all made at such a moment, according to the OV, even Jesus' decision in the garden.

Blessings,
Lee

geebob

September 30th 2004, 02:30 AM

Is this the description that you mentioned?

I thought there was one a little more precise, but this may be it. yes. take it to heart. memorize it. recite it every morning when you wake up and again before you go to bed. And rewrite your last post as if you have now know my view. As in, give up your first point you wrote to me above and similar ones. it's not going to work because I will always come back to this.

But according to the OV, the future is always open

according to the open view, some of the future is open and some of the future is closed, and once the libertarian moment has passed with sufficient resolve and all possible indeterminacies are accounted for as not relevent to the event in question, the matter is settled and closed. that matter, one specific matter, and not the whole future. The future is always partially open because the future is infinite and we will always make libertarian free choices. and the future is always closing as it approaches the present as more things become determined.

Thus all God's decisions are free, for they are all made at such a moment,

no, reread what I wrote. tatoo it on your chest. write it on dozens of strips of paper and pour milk over it and eat it for breakfast. actually, I know I wrote more than what you have up there so either there is a more full account or you cut my description off. the libertarian moment, overly simplified, but (but not so much for our purposes currently) is that is but one part of the libertarian free act. the libertarian free act involves 3 parts. there is the deliberation, the decision, and the act. the libertarian moment is sandwiched between the deliberation and the action itself and is about synonomouse with the libertarian moment. the future after the libertarian moment is open. after the libertarian moment closes, the future with regard to the act itself need not be open. the need for openness has passed. Does the deliberation have to be indeterminate? not entirely, but it blends into the libertarian moment. does the act have to be open and unsettled? not after the liberarian moment. not if in the libertarian moment the decision has been made with sufficient resolve. prior to the libertarian moment, the future is open. after the libertarian moment, there's no such need. That's all that is necessary for the open view. Is reality more complex that this? yes. but this is good enough for our purposes and I can handle more complexity. but when you repeatedly give the arguement that God has told us what he will do thus in our view he isn't free, you show you haven't gotten through this basic step, thus you don't have valid criticism.

even Jesus' decision in the garden.

no, any redecision Jesus made in the garden was self determined. that's different than free. we could say that his act of going to the cross was free, but it was an extension, the end of a decision made a long time ago.

Yes, but he wasn't mistaken, either! He did indeed seem to think his decision was a free one, and even that there were alternatives open, and yet his decision was known:

perhaps he did think his decision was free, and if so, he did not think his decision was free in the sense that libertarians define the term freedom. And that is a okay. (this is not a new admission for me and as a matter of fact, I spelled this out for Ken only about a month or two ago, but in fact I made it years ago) If you want to insist that there is a freedom that doesn't require a future, great, but there is still libertarian free will and that aint it. And the presence of that sort of freedom if you can call it freedom doesn't negate the reality of libertarian freedom. And since libertarian freedom is necessary to creation for example in salvation, in our basic deliberations, and to sever the necessity of evil from God's sovreign plans, (of course he does use evil, but that doesn't mean the evil originated from him. God uses evil that he knows will be there not because of him but because of the resolve of wickedness in mens hearts that got there without his initiative. he is resourceful to use that evil against them).

but quite frankly, I don't see any reason to hold that Jesus was free here and untill you give me a real reason to think he was, and none of the reasons you gave qualify, there's no reason for me to change. you think Jesus thought he was free. Your thinking in 20th century western categories and I don't think Jesus was thinking about his freedom. I think he was thinking about the horrid things he would have to go through the next day.

please don't repeat that you believe that he was free here. I know you think that. that doesn't constitute an arguement or a reason to think it is so. we don't agree on what a free action is so of course your going to think different actions are free. that doesn't mean I have any reason to agree with you.

and note carefully what it is that I am saying is the case here. if Jesus made a new decision that night, it was not a free decision. but his action was free in that it was finishing the free act for which the libertarian moment had passed long ago.

Yes, but he wasn't mistaken, either!

perhaps he wasn't mistaken to think that there might have been another way. why? because that there could have been another way was consistent with what he knew, and in that sense he wasn't mistaken to ask for an alternative. but that doesn't mean that there was. and you don't think that there was anyway.

So I don't have to require omniscience here, I would insist that Jesus knew he would indeed lay his life down, though:

yeah, and coming down to it, the stress of the moment made him reconsider that maybe there was another way.

I don't believe the plan could change, since it was written in Scripture. But Jesus still prayed as if there were alternatives.

right. thus the alternatives were not based on full knowledge. and Jesus consented to obey the father in consistency with a free decision he already made, hence this was not a new free decision. not in the libertarian sense.

lee_merrill

October 2nd 2004, 02:35 PM

Hi Geebob,

Geebob: … does the act have to be open and unsettled? not after the liberarian moment. not if in the libertarian moment the decision has been made with sufficient resolve. prior to the libertarian moment, the future is open. after the libertarian moment, there's no such need. That's all that is necessary for the open view. Is reality more complex that this? yes. but this is good enough for our purposes and I can handle more complexity. but when you repeatedly give the argument that God has told us what he will do thus in our view he isn't free, you show you haven't gotten through this basic step, thus you don't have valid criticism.I'm saying your interpretation implies that God is not free when he acts, in all that he has revealed that he will do. Which is, in some (real) sense, all he does! You can't spirit Amos 3:7 into thin air.

Geebob: … any redecision Jesus made in the garden was self determined. that's different than free. we could say that his act of going to the cross was free, but it was an extension, the end of a decision made a long time ago.Then are you saying Jesus didn't make a real decision in the garden? I think even "redecision" implies a decision, though.

Lee: Yes, but he wasn't mistaken, either! He did indeed seem to think his decision was a free one, and even that there were alternatives open, and yet his decision was known…

Geebob: If you want to insist that there is a freedom that doesn't require a future, great, but there is still libertarian free will and that aint it. And the presence of that sort of freedom if you can call it freedom doesn't negate the reality of libertarian freedom.I thought libertarian freedom was defined without reference to a particular view of the future. As I understand it, this means an uncaused choice, between real alternatives, and this, I think, is compatible with various views of the future.

Geebob: … if Jesus made a new decision that night, it was not a free decision. but his action was free in that it was finishing the free act for which the libertarian moment had passed long ago.Then Jesus was mistaken, he had no authority to lay his life down, it was to be done, whether he chose to do this or not.

Lee: I don't believe the plan could change, since it was written in Scripture. But Jesus still prayed as if there were alternatives

Geebob: right. thus the alternatives were not based on full knowledge. and Jesus consented to obey the father in consistency with a free decision he already made, hence this was not a new free decision. not in the libertarian sense.Well, again, not having full knowledge does not resolve the difficulty, for the point here is whether Jesus knew he would lay his life down, which he did (Mt. 26:2). And yet he prayed as if there were possibilities! And then he decided to lay down his life, which he did, freely…

John 10:18 I lay it down of my own accord.

Not "I choose to lay it down," but "I lay it down," the act itself was free, and not just the decision…

Blessings,
Lee