one of many questions the calvinists can't answer

[betzerg]

If G-d loves His creation. IF G-d's call to man is irresistable, why doesn't He just choose the entire world? What...if man has no free will or choice in the matter, what...is the purpose of only "electing" some of his creation? in fact, if christian dogman is correct....not even 1/3 of the worlds population will ever be "chosen".

And why, if HE KNOWS that 3/4ths of his creation will be predestined to reject or never hear the gospel, why did he make a burning tormenting unbearable place like hell for them to spend eternity?


Shalom,

BETZER

[seer]

If G-d loves His creation. IF G-d's call to man is irresistable, why doesn't He just choose the entire world? What...if man has no free will or choice in the matter, what...is the purpose of only "electing" some of his creation? in fact, if christian dogman is correct....not even 1/3 of the worlds population will ever be "chosen".

And why, if HE KNOWS that 3/4ths of his creation will be predestined to reject or never hear the gospel, why did he make a burning tormenting unbearable place like hell for them to spend eternity?


Shalom,

BETZER

Well one could say that this is about knowing God (Knowledge of The Holy). Through the elect we comprehend His love, mercy, and grace. And through the non-elect we comprehend His justice and wrath. But I think we could have had an object lesson on said wrath/justice with many fewer people - like about ten or so... You know - use Hitler and a few of his buddies - we would have gotten the point...

[Da Lone-Warrior]

If G-d loves His creation. IF G-d's call to man is irresistable, why doesn't He just choose the entire world? What...if man has no free will or choice in the matter, what...is the purpose of only "electing" some of his creation? in fact, if christian dogman is correct....not even 1/3 of the worlds population will ever be "chosen".

And why, if HE KNOWS that 3/4ths of his creation will be predestined to reject or never hear the gospel, why did he make a burning tormenting unbearable place like hell for them to spend eternity?


Shalom,

BETZER

I think an even better question for Calvinists/Arminianists is that if G-d is all-powerful can G-d change the past?

dlw

[Kevin Wayne]

Or an even better one: At the Synod of Dort, why were the Arminians tried for heresy in a kangaroo court instead of given the opportunity to defend their position? (What were the Calvinists afraid of?)

[GoBahnsen]

Or an even better one: At the Synod of Dort, why were the Arminians tried for heresy in a kangaroo court instead of given the opportunity to defend their position? (What were the Calvinists afraid of?)I didn't know it was a kangaroo court...hmmm, I might have to re-think my whole Reformed position. Thanks for the insight Kevin.

[Kevin Wayne]

I didn't know it was a kangaroo court...hmmm, I might have to re-think my whole Reformed position. Thanks for the insight Kevin.

Sarcasm can't be veiled.

[seer]

I think an even better question for Calvinists/Arminianists is that if G-d is all-powerful can G-d change the past?

dlw

Change the past to what? Creatures with no free will?

[Calvinist4Him]

If G-d loves His creation. IF G-d's call to man is irresistable, why doesn't He just choose the entire world? What...if man has no free will or choice in the matter, what...is the purpose of only "electing" some of his creation? in fact, if christian dogman is correct....not even 1/3 of the worlds population will ever be "chosen".

And why, if HE KNOWS that 3/4ths of his creation will be predestined to reject or never hear the gospel, why did he make a burning tormenting unbearable place like hell for them to spend eternity?

I dunno, you tell me why God revealed Himself specially to Israel and not other people on the earth? You may claim God play's favorites, but please don't suggest the absurd claim that God is a racist.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Or an even better one: At the Synod of Dort, why were the Arminians tried for heresy in a kangaroo court instead of given the opportunity to defend their position? (What were the Calvinists afraid of?)

Not only that, after this kangaroo court, the Arminians were then officially declared heretics. All Arminians pastors, ~200 of them, were booted from office and were to be banished if they wouldn't be quiet. Some were imprisoned. Five days after this synod, Jan van Oldenbarnevelt, a strong Arminian supporter, was beheaded.

Long live the Remonstrants!

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Change the past to what? Creatures with no free will?

change the past in any respect, such as whether or not Hitler's mom had him.

Isn't that putting God in a box?
dlw

[Calvinist4Him]

change the past in any respect, such as whether or not Hitler's mom had him.

Isn't that putting God in a box?

Hebrews 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Do the Scriptures above put God in a box?

It is impossible for God to swear by any being greater than Himself. Why is that? Because there exists no being greater than Him!!

Is that putting God in a box?

Of course not!

[Ormly]

If G-d loves His creation. IF G-d's call to man is irresistable, why doesn't He just choose the entire world? What...if man has no free will or choice in the matter, what...is the purpose of only "electing" some of his creation? in fact, if christian dogman is correct....not even 1/3 of the worlds population will ever be "chosen".

And why, if HE KNOWS that 3/4ths of his creation will be predestined to reject or never hear the gospel, why did he make a burning tormenting unbearable place like hell for them to spend eternity?


Shalom,

BETZER

Not understanding what election is, is the problem. God doesn't elect in the sense we are given to understand it from traditional reform teaching. The elect are those who, under the proper circumstances, God knows will come to Him. Of course the reprobate are those He knows, won't. A very clear example of election is, Paul.

[betzerg]

I dunno, you tell me why God revealed Himself specially to Israel and not other people on the earth? You may claim God play's favorites, but please don't suggest the absurd claim that God is a racist.

what makes you think that G-d didn't reveal HIS ONENESS to others on the earth? The Jewish people RESPONDED more faithfully than the other nations!

in fact, a midrash concerning G-d's call to Israel states that G-d went to many different men..and to many nations...but it was Abraham who was the first to leave all that he had known to follow the living G-d. Abraham believed G-d....and thus G-d gave a PROMISE to HIM and to HIS OFSPRING...lets not assume that the choosing of Israel was arbitary.

Shalom,

BETZER

[GoBahnsen]

Not only that, after this kangaroo court, the Arminians were then officially declared heretics. All Arminians pastors, ~200 of them, were booted from office and were to be banished if they wouldn't be quiet. Some were imprisoned. Five days after this synod, Jan van Oldenbarnevelt, a strong Arminian supporter, was beheaded.

Long live the Remonstrants! Things were different back then and if you try to fit what took place in the 1600's into our modern USA way of doing business, whether in terms of Church or State, you can really muddy the waters. Kangeroo court huh? That's about as muddy as you can get. Extra cheap and unfounded. You guys are embarrassing yourselves.

You want to talk about bad, get after the RCC, not the Reformation that freed both of your lives. Traitors you are to that which delivered you before you were born. You're like liberal professors in America, teaching students to hate their own country.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

Things were different back then and if you try to fit what took place in the 1600's into our modern USA way of doing business, whether in terms of Church or State, you can really muddy the waters. Kangeroo court huh? That's about as muddy as you can get. Extra cheap and unfounded. You guys are embarrassing yourselves.

Morals and ethics have never changed. You shall not murder. I'm sure the Holy Spirit did not prompt the contra-remonstrants to do those despicable things. Nice try to sweep it under the rug. It certainly was a kangaroo court, and it is a matter of Church history, if you'd actually do some research. You embarrass yourself by remaining willfully ignorant about this and many other topics. Pull your head out of the sand. Study before making such silly accusations.

You want to talk about bad, get after the RCC, not the Reformation that freed both of your lives. Traitors you are to that which delivered you before you were born. You're like liberal professors in America, teaching students to hate their own country.

Don't attempt to change the subject by bringing up the RCC. You forget that there were more Christian organizations than just the RCC and the "reformers". How about the Anabaptists, for example?
Liberal Professors? Because we are against your inability to correctly exegete scripture? Because of your erroneous judgement of folks who are not reformed? Because of your hatred and continued strawmen of anything besides Calvinism? Continue to live in your narrow dream world, if you must.

[micah4]

You want to talk about bad, get after the RCC, not the Reformation that freed both of your lives. Traitors you are to that which delivered you before you were born. You're like liberal professors in America, teaching students to hate their own country.

Jacob Hermann was a reformer. So were the anabaptists. So was Melanchthon. And the way of the reformers was paved by the likes of the Waldenses and others who were in no way Calvinists in their theology. The attempt by the dortish synod cult to equate "Reformed" theology with 5 point calvinism is theft of the good name of the reformation. The theologies within the reformation movement spanned well beyond the narrow scope of modern day calvinism. Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because Calvinists have attempted to call their systematic theology "reformed theology" that this perspective represents the whole and sum of the theology of the reformation or that all reformers held to Calvin's views on predestination and election. If that were true, there would have been no synod of dort.

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Hebrews 6:18 so that by two unchangeable things in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have taken refuge would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.

Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.

Do the Scriptures above put God in a box?

It is impossible for God to swear by any being greater than Himself. Why is that? Because there exists no being greater than Him!!

Is that putting God in a box?

Of course not!

If God can still be seen as "sovereign" despite how God can not change the past then it likewise does not necessary imply a loss of God's sovereignty for God to not exhaustively forsee those aspects of the future that are undetermined by virtue of the free-will decisions allowed us his created beings.

The end is secure and the persistence of a remnant, or elect, is secure but we've also been given the keys to the kingdom and had better deliberate on how best we may let our lights shine through how we use them.

dlw

[infide]

If God can still be seen as "sovereign" despite how God can not change the past then it likewise does not necessary imply a loss of God's sovereignty for God to not exhaustively forsee those aspects of the future that are undetermined by virtue of the free-will decisions allowed us his created beings.

The end is secure and the persistence of a remnant, or elect, is secure but we've also been given the keys to the kingdom and had better deliberate on how best we may let our lights shine through how we use them.

dlw

dlw,

Omnipotence is a modal notion, meaning that it has to do with God's power to bring about certain counterfactual states of affairs, or as most people say, certain possible worlds. We dont expect God to do everything possible, but that He COULD do anything possible. The reason God cannot make a rock so big that He cant lift it, and that He cant make 2+2=5, and things like that, is because there just is no possible world like that for God to create. They are logically impossible states of affairs, in the broad-logical sense.

changing the past is just such a problem. It is logically impossible that something which has happenned, has not happenned. And not even God can go against the Logic that He knows is necessarily true.

what will really boggle your mind is that the future is similar to the past in this respect. It is logically impossible to make it the case that something that will be, will not be. Of course, the key to having causal power over the future is not in the future, but its in the present. We have power right now to cause or determine that future which will be in the future.

Now, considering what we've said above, it is not logically impossible for God to foreknow (exhaustively) all that will be in the future. This is plainly goverened by this fact i mentioned above, that the future is unalterable just as the past is, and if God is Omniscient, God knows which future will be actual. That is, He knows how free creatures would act to bring about certain states of affairs in the future, and what those states of affairs are. God's exhaustive foreknowledge, then, is what you would need to show is logically impossible, in order for your open theistic apologetic to work. So far i havent seen such an argument.

peace,
jd

[Da Lone-Warrior]

dlw,

Omnipotence is a modal notion, meaning that it has to do with God's power to bring about certain counterfactual states of affairs, or as most people say, certain possible worlds. We dont expect God to do everything possible, but that He COULD do anything possible. The reason God cannot make a rock so big that He cant lift it, and that He cant make 2+2=5, and things like that, is because there just is no possible world like that for God to create. They are logically impossible states of affairs, in the broad-logical sense.


So do you think it is possible for God to create a world where created beings were endowed with significant creaturely freedom and God's sovereignty was limited in some respects in that world? Where the end was secure, but along the way the Christian Church could fall short in their missiological notions for themselves?

changing the past is just such a problem. It is logically impossible that something which has happenned, has not happenned. And not even God can go against the Logic that He knows is necessarily true.

If God is outside of time then changing the past should be no harder than changing the future.

what will really boggle your mind is that the future is similar to the past in this respect. It is logically impossible to make it the case that something that will be, will not be. Of course, the key to having causal power over the future is not in the future, but its in the present. We have power right now to cause or determine that future which will be in the future.[quote]

I don't get my mind boggled too often...:wink: I think the presumption is whether something will be in the future or not. We typically deal only with possible states of the future. The OVTheistic view says that God ultimately must deal with possible state of the future and has the perfect plan for each possible state.

We make choices but I think there may be some ambiguity in the extent that our choices are predetermined or not. Our causal power wrt the future is always only in part and requires an informed leap of faith about what other developments will take place.

[quote]Now, considering what we've said above, it is not logically impossible for God to foreknow (exhaustively) all that will be in the future. This is plainly goverened by this fact i mentioned above, that the future is unalterable just as the past is, and if God is Omniscient, God knows which future will be actual. That is, He knows how free creatures would act to bring about certain states of affairs in the future, and what those states of affairs are. God's exhaustive foreknowledge, then, is what you would need to show is logically impossible, in order for your open theistic apologetic to work. So far i havent seen such an argument.

But does the future consist of events that will be in the ultimately, unalterable sense that the past has been?

I don't need to show that this specific theoretical state of events is logically impossible, just show that it is incompatible with the hebraic worldview of Yeshua of Nazareth who affirmed the reality of evil without raising the problem of evil in his ministry.

Just because you can pull a theoretically possible world out of your but doesn't mean that such a world has anything to do with the world that really exists.

cheers,
dlw

[infide]

So do you think it is possible for God to create a world where created beings were endowed with significant creaturely freedom and God's sovereignty was limited in some respects in that world? Where the end was secure, but along the way the Christian Church could fall short in their missiological notions for themselves?

It is logically impossible, in my view, for God ever to be ignorant of any fact about what a Universe would be like if He were to create it, logically prior to him creating.

As far as Sovereignty is concerned, I dont feel Biblical depictions of God's Sovereignty ever indicate that God has not given freedom of choice to His creatures. That is, God limits His exhaustive control (some people think this is sovereignty) of the Universe in order for the creation of morally culpable agents, not His Sovereignty. In my view, God's Sovereignty includes how He chooses to rule the Universe. If God chooses to give room for agent freedom, then that is His Sovereign right.

If God is outside of time then changing the past should be no harder than changing the future.

God is not outside time. And I had already said that it is just as impossible to change the future, as it is the past.


I don't get my mind boggled too often...:wink: I think the presumption is whether something will be in the future or not. We typically deal only with possible states of the future. The OVTheistic view says that God ultimately must deal with possible state of the future and has the perfect plan for each possible state.

Well, youre wrong on this one. Despite that there are many possibilities, basic logic demands that there will only be one actuality from among them. Thus, if that is true, then God cannot be ignorant of which possibility will be actual, because this is described by a proposition that has truth value:

(P) From among possibilities Q, Qx will be actual.

Proposition P is either true or false. And so is all the similiar propositions with x ranging from 1..n

So either, you must deny that one possibility will be actual (which is to deny basic logic) OR you must deny that God is knowledgable of some true proposition, call it P', which is the one true among the propositions described above.

We make choices but I think there may be some ambiguity in the extent that our choices are predetermined or not. Our causal power wrt the future is always only in part and requires an informed leap of faith about what other developments will take place.

all choices are made in the present, and so there is no partial causal power in the future. Causal powers are those which the agent has in order to render a possible state of affairs actual. That happens in the present, under the determination of the agent, gifted by God's grace.

But does the future consist of events that will be in the ultimately, unalterable sense that the past has been?

technically, no. If we take presentism seriously (an A-theory, or dynamic theory of time) then the events in the future do not exist yet. But information (propositions) about those events could and does exist.

likewise, events in the past no longer exist either.

I don't need to show that this specific theoretical state of events is logically impossible, just show that it is incompatible with the hebraic worldview of Yeshua of Nazareth who affirmed the reality of evil without raising the problem of evil in his ministry.

But Jesus preached to Jews who werent necessarily overly concerned with these kinds of questions. Jesus' silence on this matter does not give you an excuse at really looking into these things.

Further, if your view is true, it should stand up against philosophical and theological criticism. unfortunately, that hasnt been the case, as far as i have seen.

Just because you can pull a theoretically possible world out of your but doesn't mean that such a world has anything to do with the world that really exists.

I didnt follow that. where did i pull a theoretically possible world out of my but?

peace,
jd

[Da Lone-Warrior]

It is logically impossible, in my view, for God ever to be ignorant of any fact about what a Universe would be like if He were to create it, logically prior to him creating.

Ah, but can God really not create something where not all aspects of the finally product are predetermined? You are a computer-programmer. You can design a program with elements that generate output randomly, can't you? So why cannot God do something similar?

I think you must be using a funky notion of logic if that is "logically impossible".

As far as Sovereignty is concerned, I dont feel Biblical depictions of God's Sovereignty ever indicate that God has not given freedom of choice to His creatures. That is, God limits His exhaustive control (some people think this is sovereignty) of the Universe in order for the creation of morally culpable agents, not His Sovereignty. In my view, God's Sovereignty includes how He chooses to rule the Universe. If God chooses to give room for agent freedom, then that is His Sovereign right.

I think our differences then revolve around how we use the word Sovereignty. Sovereignty can mean decision-making, rendering the undetermined determined in my book, it also means the upholding the universe and guaranteeing the final outcome.

God is not outside time. And I had already said that it is just as impossible to change the future, as it is the past.

I don't see why it is impossible to change the future. We do have agent freedom and what is agent freedom worth if it doesn't entail determining aspects of the future? You asserted that the future is ultimately immutable, like the past, but you did not prove it.

Well, youre wrong on this one. Despite that there are many possibilities, basic logic demands that there will only be one actuality from among them. Thus, if that is true, then God cannot be ignorant of which possibility will be actual, because this is described by a proposition that has truth value:

(P) From among possibilities Q, Qx will be actual.

Proposition P is either true or false. And so is all the similiar propositions with x ranging from 1..n

Au contraire, a proposition need not be either true or false. One can have it so that Prob(Qx)=px and likewise for all similar propositions with x ranging from 1...n with the sum of Prob(Qx)=1.

The more important point is that even if this is true for say specific acts along the way that doesn't mean the final outcome is not certain. Think of it like playing chess with a Grandmaster who knows the Nash Equilibrium strategy, while the opponent does not. It does not matter that the grandmaster does not know exactly what move his opponent will take, there is no way the grandmaster will lose the game.

So either, you must deny that one possibility will be actual (which is to deny basic logic) OR you must deny that God is knowledgable of some true proposition, call it P', which is the one true among the propositions described above.

My friend, there are many different brands of logical systems. Only a subset of them are completely deterministic. God knows all the probabilities and is more than capable of responding optimally to whatever contingency emerges.

all choices are made in the present, and so there is no partial causal power in the future. Causal powers are those which the agent has in order to render a possible state of affairs actual. That happens in the present, under the determination of the agent, gifted by God's grace.

Whatever, the present changes second by second and what is the present now becomes the past shortly and then the future becomes the present. Our "choices" are product of past choices of ourselves and others. That's why we don't decide to go out nude to work terribly often, past choices/behavior inculcated into us delimits the choices we make.

You're making too much of a distinction between past, present, choice. I don't think one can really do that.

technically, no. If we take presentism seriously (an A-theory, or dynamic theory of time) then the events in the future do not exist yet. But information (propositions) about those events could and does exist.

sure. And the question is can God know events that don't exist?

likewise, events in the past no longer exist either.

But the information concerning them can presumably be understood completely, unlike with the future.

My big point is that we can't treat the past/future in the same manner, even from the ultimate perspective of God.

But Jesus preached to Jews who werent necessarily overly concerned with these kinds of questions. Jesus' silence on this matter does not give you an excuse at really looking into these things.

Trust me I have. Jesus didn't deal with the problem of evil either, and the reason is that such a problem arises from the Augustine theodicy/worldview, which is extrabiblical and not essential for doing biblical theology.

Further, if your view is true, it should stand up against philosophical and theological criticism. unfortunately, that hasnt been the case, as far as i have seen.

With all due respect, similar views have long been held in philosophical currents. In theology, the orthodoxy among Europeans has long been skewed by virtue of the unhealthy close relationship between church and state. Those in power in the state have had reasons to want to oppress the full implications of God granting us freedom. Please note some of the well done descriptions of how the powers-that-be manipulated the council of Dort.

From an OVTheistic standpoint, the mere development of Europe and then the United States as predominating in Christian Theology are not necessarily predetermined events and are open to change, particularly as we learn more about the biblical worldview of Jesus and the early church and gain insights on its implications for today from the vibrant churches of the 2/3rds world.

I didnt follow that. where did i pull a theoretically possible world out of my but?

peace,
jd

I said that even if such a world where the future and the past were predetermined is theoretically possible, that doesn't mean it is the actual world or should be our null hypothesis until OVTheists can get their act together and make a completely compelling case for viewing the world otherwise. Pulling something out of your but is a somewhat crude way to characterize when people submit hypotheticals that have no necessary relation to what really is.

peace,
dlw

[infide]

dlw,

I am okay with continuing this discussion, as it kind of relates to this OP. However, if the original poster wants a more focused discussion, we will have to move this to a different thread.

Ah, but can God really not create something where not all aspects of the finally product are predetermined? You are a computer-programmer. You can design a program with elements that generate output randomly, can't you? So why cannot God do something similar?

Because God, and all His attributes are necessary in every possible world. Thus, a world cannot exist where God fails to be Omniscient for example. Since I am convinced that Omniscience is not a modal notion, I will not be impressed by talking about God knowing "everything possible to know". I also dont think human freedom puts that kind of constraint on God's knowledge, with the ascription of middle-knowledge to God.

As far as your computer programmer analogy, that is not a similar enough to this situation, since I, unlike God, am not Omniscient. Nor is computer programming (an altogether deterministic process) at all like God creating a world with true indeterministic moral freedom. The idea that I can create something with *random* outputs (which actually is not possible in computing.. but nonetheless) is not at all helpful to this problem since a completely random moral agent is no more culpable for their actions than a externally-determined agent.

After all, we want agent causation to not be randomness, but rational self-determination. Thus i am inclined to think that agent causation is a unique kind of indeterminism, unlike randomness.

I think you must be using a funky notion of logic if that is "logically impossible".

I believe God is a necessary being, nothing funky about it. If God is necessary, then it is impossible for Him to be anything other than Omniscient in every possible world.

I think our differences then revolve around how we use the word Sovereignty. Sovereignty can mean decision-making, rendering the undetermined determined in my book, it also means the upholding the universe and guaranteeing the final outcome.

sounds like splitting hairs to me. I never even used the definition you are arguing against. are you reading my posts?

I don't see why it is impossible to change the future. We do have agent freedom and what is agent freedom worth if it doesn't entail determining aspects of the future? You asserted that the future is ultimately immutable, like the past, but you did not prove it.

determining the future in the present is NOT the same thing as changing the future. The future is unalterable, because if we could change the future that would mean that we could act in such a way as to bring it about that something that will be, will not be, which involves a simple logical contradiction (please note, i am not using the word "will" here in any other sense than in expressing futureness. I think the use of "will" to mean metaphysical necessity in OVT literature begs the question for Open Theism; In my view, it is entirely possible that something could be described with a "will" and also be completely contingent).

Au contraire, a proposition need not be either true or false. One can have it so that Prob(Qx)=px and likewise for all similar propositions with x ranging from 1...n with the sum of Prob(Qx)=1.

But not when considering God's knowledge. God does not deliberate over probabilities trying to "guess" what will happen in the future. God simply knows with certainty all that is. I have made the case before on these forums that your view of God's knowledge is too anthropomorphic, involving a perceptual view of God's knowledge. But without any significant rationale, that unnecessarily begs the quesiton for open theism. Because a view of God's innate knowledge, a conceptual view of God's knowledge is just as viable and incompatible with the perceptual view of knowledge that you endorse. Molinism is just such a model.

The more important point is that even if this is true for say specific acts along the way that doesn't mean the final outcome is not certain. Think of it like playing chess with a Grandmaster who knows the Nash Equilibrium strategy, while the opponent does not. It does not matter that the grandmaster does not know exactly what move his opponent will take, there is no way the grandmaster will lose the game.

I shouldve known I was conversing with a Boyd student. The problem is, the rules of Chess are such that events always resolve to certain things, a checkmate, a stalemate. But in the real world, is that how things happen? Unless you are going to resort to determinism and limiting the free will of creatures, it is entirely possible that humans will continually act contrary to God's desires. What then, on your model?

My friend, there are many different brands of logical systems. Only a subset of them are completely deterministic. God knows all the probabilities and is more than capable of responding optimally to whatever contingency emerges.

If God only knows probabilities as you claim, then God is ignorant of some facts about the Universe, namely which possibility will actually occur. Because even given a probability of .000000001 of some outcome, that outcome is still possible, and given that God is Omniscient God would know whether improbable states of affairs will occur.

We arent working from a completely pragmatic point of view here. We are not seeing what things God needs and then ascribing them to God, we are working with theological definitions, and hopefully a maximizing view of God's Nature. God has and is more than is simply needed to be Creator or Sovereign.

Whatever, the present changes second by second and what is the present now becomes the past shortly and then the future becomes the present. Our "choices" are product of past choices of ourselves and others. That's why we don't decide to go out nude to work terribly often, past choices/behavior inculcated into us delimits the choices we make.

You're making too much of a distinction between past, present, choice. I don't think one can really do that.

in fact, if you are an open theist, you should be completely on board with me on this matter. I'm actually shocked that you wouldnt agree with it. All you said in that first paragraph doesnt really demonstrate or prove anything in regards to open theism.

sure. And the question is can God know events that don't exist?

Can God know past events that dont exist? YES. Because there is information about those events that does exist right now, namely propositions in God's knowledge.

But the information concerning them can presumably be understood completely, unlike with the future.

My big point is that we can't treat the past/future in the same manner, even from the ultimate perspective of God.

Only from the standpoint of causal determination. We can causally determine which future will be actual, but that does not mean that God does not know how or what we will freely choose. Molinism and middle-knowledge posit a model for just that.

Trust me I have. Jesus didn't deal with the problem of evil either, and the reason is that such a problem arises from the Augustine theodicy/worldview, which is extrabiblical and not essential for doing biblical theology.

many people who do not use the Augustine theodicy still deal with the problem of evil. Even Open theists have issues that need to be resolved with the problem of evil.

With all due respect, similar views have long been held in philosophical currents. In theology, the orthodoxy among Europeans has long been skewed by virtue of the unhealthy close relationship between church and state. Those in power in the state have had reasons to want to oppress the full implications of God granting us freedom. Please note some of the well done descriptions of how the powers-that-be manipulated the council of Dort.

trying to build a case for how or why Open Theism may not have been popular (or defended very often at all) in Church History is very misconstrued (and involves the genetic fallacy). The fact remains, that there are philosophical and theological models which allow for God's exhaustive knowledge of all things, His Sovereignty, and the libertarian freedom of agents - such as Molinism.

From an OVTheistic standpoint, the mere development of Europe and then the United States as predominating in Christian Theology are not necessarily predetermined events and are open to change, particularly as we learn more about the biblical worldview of Jesus and the early church and gain insights on its implications for today from the vibrant churches of the 2/3rds world.

Again, i dont see your point. Those other Churches are not working within an analytical philosophy or systematic theology framework. Thats fine, and of course, philosophy is not necessary to live the Christian life. But what about when you live in a culture (like ours, especially in academic circles) where often those things ARE important and brought against the Church. The Church needs good answers to those questions, and i think they are there for those willing to take the time.

I said that even if such a world where the future and the past were predetermined is theoretically possible, that doesn't mean it is the actual world or should be our null hypothesis until OVTheists can get their act together and make a completely compelling case for viewing the world otherwise. Pulling something out of your but is a somewhat crude way to characterize when people submit hypotheticals that have no necessary relation to what really is.

peace,
dlw

This isnt about whether a world where things are predetermined is possible (predetermined is a strange description, especially since I am an indeterminist) or whatever, its about whether a world where God doesnt know some propositions is possible. And of course, defending an orthodox view of God's Nature, i am convinced that it is not. but that is okay, because We dont need to limit God's attributes to ascribe moral freedom to agents, or to understand His message in Scripture. Molinism provides a brilliant model for both.

peace,
jd

[Da Lone-Warrior]

dlw,

I am okay with continuing this discussion, as it kind of relates to this OP. However, if the original poster wants a more focused discussion, we will have to move this to a different thread.

sure.

Because God, and all His attributes are necessary in every possible world. Thus, a world cannot exist where God fails to be Omniscient for example. Since I am convinced that Omniscience is not a modal notion, I will not be impressed by talking about God knowing "everything possible to know". I also dont think human freedom puts that kind of constraint on God's knowledge, with the ascription of middle-knowledge to God.

Ah, but omniscience can only apply to what is knowable. I.e., if somethings are fundamentally unknowable in the definite sense then even God's omniscience would not entail knowing them definitively.

Why are you convinced that Omniscience is not a modal notion?

I think it more has to do with God's knowledge putting limitations on human freedom. If you know exactly how someone is going to respond to whatever situation you put them in, have you really given them any freedom?

As far as your computer programmer analogy, that is not a similar enough to this situation, since I, unlike God, am not Omniscient. Nor is computer programming (an altogether deterministic process) at all like God creating a world with true indeterministic moral freedom. The idea that I can create something with *random* outputs (which actually is not possible in computing.. but nonetheless) is not at all helpful to this problem since a completely random moral agent is no more culpable for their actions than a externally-determined agent.

I understand that *random* outputs in computing are not truly random but based on seeds chosen. The point was that in designing a system, one need not predetermine the precise actions taken by all the components for the system to work. I use the notion of a randomness for a moral agent as a metaphor for how their actions are perceived by another, such as God. They need not literally flip a weighted coin to decide what they will choose to do, but to the extent their choice is not predetermined it will seem like as if they have flipped a coin to make their decision.

[qutoe]After all, we want agent causation to not be randomness, but rational self-determination. Thus i am inclined to think that agent causation is a unique kind of indeterminism, unlike randomness.[/quote]

Once again, I think one can apply the metaphor with some descriptiveness. Unlike with coins our choices do have memories and we become formed in our habits so that we will tend to glorify or pain God with our actions that were initially to an extent freely chosen.


sounds like splitting hairs to me. I never even used the definition you are arguing against. are you reading my posts?

Yes, did you read mine, I said, "our differences then revolve around how we use the word Sovereignty. Sovereignty can mean decision-making, rendering the undetermined determined."

I think this def'n of sovereignty is the more common notion of sovereignty and one in which God kenoptically gives up some of God's sovereignty, while still upholding existence and ensuring that the end is secure.

determining the future in the present is NOT the same thing as changing the future. The future is unalterable, because if we could change the future that would mean that we could act in such a way as to bring it about that something that will be, will not be, which involves a simple logical contradiction (please note, i am not using the word "will" here in any other sense than in expressing futureness. I think the use of "will" to mean metaphysical necessity in OVT literature begs the question for Open Theism; In my view, it is entirely possible that something could be described with a "will" and also be completely contingent).

The problem is that we don't deal with too many "will-be"s in regard to the future. We deal with a lot more "may-be"s. You are arguing from the part to the whole, I believe. Just because we change the future in some respects does not mean we can change the future in all respects. Or, alternatively, just because some important aspects of the future cannot be changed due to God's sovereignty does not imply that other aspects of the future can or could have been changed. There is no logical contradiction here, just a contradiction of the supposition that the future is composed only of "will-be"s.

I don't understand what you mean by "it is entirely possible that something could be described with a "will" and also be completely contingent".

But not when considering God's knowledge. God does not deliberate over probabilities trying to "guess" what will happen in the future. God simply knows with certainty all that is. I have made the case before on these forums that your view of God's knowledge is too anthropomorphic, involving a perceptual view of God's knowledge. But without any significant rationale, that unnecessarily begs the quesiton for open theism. Because a view of God's innate knowledge, a conceptual view of God's knowledge is just as viable and incompatible with the perceptual view of knowledge that you endorse. Molinism is just such a model.

How would you know what God does and doesn't do? Honestly, does it really matter whether or not God operates with a contingency plan or just knows the outcomes wrt God's ultimate sovereignty? All of our knowledge of God is anthropomorphic. The Bible is full of anthropomorphic models of God and that is ultimate rationale for viewing God's knowledge as such. The Calvinistic understanding of God, on the other hand, is far more like the view of God of Aristotle.

I shouldve known I was conversing with a Boyd student. The problem is, the rules of Chess are such that events always resolve to certain things, a checkmate, a stalemate. But in the real world, is that how things happen? Unless you are going to resort to determinism and limiting the free will of creatures, it is entirely possible that humans will continually act contrary to God's desires. What then, on your model?

Once more, we only deal with the much more complicated reality through simplified models, as we only see in part. The Nash Equilibirium presumes both players are using the strategy. In reality, we know that there is not parity between the ultimate rivals, God and Satan and that Satan has already made the wrong move that guarantees he will lose. The purpose of the analogy is to show how we can have certainty about the final outcome without having certainty about what the next move the opposition will make.

Inasmuch as God truly is omniscient in the sense of knowing all possible states and the optimal response to them all then yes the chess analogy works and we can be assured that the future is secured, despite our ability as the Church to fumble in our role.

If God only knows probabilities as you claim, then God is ignorant of some facts about the Universe, namely which possibility will actually occur. Because even given a probability of .000000001 of some outcome, that outcome is still possible, and given that God is Omniscient God would know whether improbable states of affairs will occur.

Yes, but God also affects what states may occur and ensures that only those states that do not ultimately impede God's final victory will have a non-zero chance of happening.

In which case, it really doesn't matter whether he knows exactly what I'll be typing next kafslkdfhaosdjgihasdkltrfjas;dlkajsd;lkth or not.

We arent working from a completely pragmatic point of view here. We are not seeing what things God needs and then ascribing them to God, we are working with theological definitions, and hopefully a maximizing view of God's Nature. God has and is more than is simply needed to be Creator or Sovereign.

We are working from a view that is geared to the establishment of God's kingship as our privilege as Christians. We are necessarily limited in our knowledge of God by what has been revealed to us in Scripture and God's creation. I don't see the point being the maximizing of God's nature, but rather holding true to the biblical portrait of God as being Good and there being truly gratuitous evil that Jesus had to die at the cross to overcome. This biblical portrait then would seem to imply that God must have self-limited God's greatness in some respects. We can only presume that God knew why this self-limitation was justified.

in fact, if you are an open theist, you should be completely on board with me on this matter. I'm actually shocked that you wouldnt agree with it. All you said in that first paragraph doesnt really demonstrate or prove anything in regards to open theism.

You're referring to whether the God of Calvinists can change the past? Well, as I understand it many Calvinists do in fact think that God is outside of time and that OVTheism puts God in a box by saying God doesn't have Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge. In that case, asking whether God can change the past shows that they too are putting God in a box and prescribing limitations on what God can and cannot do.

You yourself seem to imply that God can change neither the past or the future, which seems to leave God more impotent than sovereign in my book.

Can God know past events that dont exist? YES. Because there is information about those events that does exist right now, namely propositions in God's knowledge.

Past events exist in the past, which is knowable in a way that the future isn't knowable. Tag you're it. (Don't you sometimes feel like we're chasing each other's tails in these debates?)

Only from the standpoint of causal determination. We can causally determine which future will be actual, but that does not mean that God does not know how or what we will freely choose. Molinism and middle-knowledge posit a model for just that.

Is God free in these models to alter what our choices will be? Because that's the rub, as I understand it. Molinism postulate a set of possible universes from which God chooses the best, but this leaves open the question of from whence comes the set of possible universes or the criterion by which they are ranked? If the ultimate source is God then God is still ultimately responsible for what actually is actualized.

It's like Lewis saying that we need to pain as a trumpet rouse us out of our deafness without dealing with the question of why we are deaf in the first place. It doesn't ultimately dispatch the problem of evil.

many people who do not use the Augustine theodicy still deal with the problem of evil. Even Open theists have issues that need to be resolved with the problem of evil.

OVTheists are more concerned with the reality of evil. There is no need to account for intellectually why seeming gratuitous incidents of evil happen and that is the meaning of the problem of evil as I used it.

trying to build a case for how or why Open Theism may not have been popular (or defended very often at all) in Church History is very misconstrued (and involves the genetic fallacy). The fact remains, that there are philosophical and theological models which allow for God's exhaustive knowledge of all things, His Sovereignty, and the libertarian freedom of agents - such as Molinism.

It does not commit the genetic fallacy, inasmuch as the notion of God knowing everything exhaustively definitively can be rejected on other grounds. It does account for a willingness to part ways with a notion that has been construed as orthodox for a good portion of Church history, inasmuch as that history is not understood as being teleologically being led by the Holy Spirit, as with the Constantinization of the Church and its institutionalization of anti-semitism and racism at certain points.

By hey Sorry man, Molinism doesn't cut the mustard as there is really no intrinsic need to affirm God's exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all things to do biblical theology that equips us to help further establish the kingship of God. Molinism tries to have its cake and eat it too and more importantly it doesn't necessarily help with the pastoral approach to the problem of evil, which ought to be based on how we ultimately understand evil as the logical is fundamentally based on what is practical/useful/pastoral.

Again, i dont see your point. Those other Churches are not working within an analytical philosophy or systematic theology framework. Thats fine, and of course, philosophy is not necessary to live the Christian life. But what about when you live in a culture (like ours, especially in academic circles) where often those things ARE important and brought against the Church. The Church needs good answers to those questions, and i think they are there for those willing to take the time.

Churches must do theology as part of their ministry as doxy and praxy are inevitably interwoven. The point is that many past systematic theological answers to questions were not exactly based on the Bible, but rather particular interpretations of parts of the Bible that were in conflict with the biblical worldview. I am thinking here of the word the elect and predestination as they are found in the New Testament. As I have learned as a seminary student, elect refers to the remnant of the faithful. It is a group of individuals, but not per se a specific group of specific individuals. Calvin and later Calvinist writers may have gotten things wrong by virtue of their removal from the 1st century jewish culture that the Bible was written in.

That is why I think we need to have an open view of theology. I like the writings of Roger Olson (http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/2005/09/roger_olson_doe.html) on this regard.

This isnt about whether a world where things are predetermined is possible (predetermined is a strange description, especially since I am an indeterminist) or whatever, its about whether a world where God doesnt know some propositions is possible. And of course, defending an orthodox view of God's Nature, i am convinced that it is not. but that is okay, because We dont need to limit God's attributes to ascribe moral freedom to agents, or to understand His message in Scripture. Molinism provides a brilliant model for both.

The only implication of not everything being predetermined is that God no longer has EDF and God's omniscience is modal and applies to all that is knowable.

The fact that much of Christian history, this notion would have been seen as heterodox does not mean it is not true. There are many things about christian history that have been very undesirable, as I'm sure they OP poster would be able to testify to.

I think the real difficulty with OVTheism is that it forces us to cope with suffering differently. A lot of the beliefs that God knows the future is about providing a psychic balm to our own fears about the immediate future. And a lot of beliefs in human freedom have resulted in existential angst. I can testify that when I first graduated from college as an OVTheist thanks in part to my studies under Boyd, that I became beset with angst that was somewhat derivative from my changed theological beliefs. Bad and Good things came from that and my views matured to the point where I affirm with Mother Teresa that I believe with all my heart that God will never let anything happen to me that God and I cannot handle together, I just wish God didn't trust me so much...!
peace,
dlw

[infide]

Ah, but omniscience can only apply to what is knowable. I.e., if somethings are fundamentally unknowable in the definite sense then even God's omniscience would not entail knowing them definitively.

Why are you convinced that Omniscience is not a modal notion?

Because of a few things. For one, since you believe there are "facts" that exist, but are just unknowable, then your view of Omniscience might make humans Omniscient. Because humans seem to lack knowledge of many things that are "unknowable" for them. This is knowledge from what is called "negative theology". Then from "greatest being" theology, we must ask why and where the knowledge of God's Omniscience comes from. It comes from Greatest Being Theology (Scripture says that God knows a lot, and has foreknowledge, but it never explains the details of this). And thus, greatest being theology could help us understand the nature of this attribute. But it seems that a being with omniscience in every possible world, is greater (and that property is greater) than a being with omniscience in a certain world.

Secondly, most Open Theists are a little more creative, and say, "no, there just is no facts to be known in the future". To this, we must ask them "why?", and i think several things demonstrate why this is not the case.

I think it more has to do with God's knowledge putting limitations on human freedom. If you know exactly how someone is going to respond to whatever situation you put them in, have you really given them any freedom?

yeah, in the case of Molinism that is exactly the case, because God does not determine the counterfacts that He knows. That is, God doesnt determine "this is how creature C would choose in S" where S is some set of circumstances. Rather God just has knowledge about how all creatures C would choose. He knows, but does not determine those things.

Freedom is built into the Molinistic scheme, because God's knowledge is about how free creatures freely choose.

I understand that *random* outputs in computing are not truly random but based on seeds chosen. The point was that in designing a system, one need not predetermine the precise actions taken by all the components for the system to work. I use the notion of a randomness for a moral agent as a metaphor for how their actions are perceived by another, such as God. They need not literally flip a weighted coin to decide what they will choose to do, but to the extent their choice is not predetermined it will seem like as if they have flipped a coin to make their decision.

God doesnt predetermine how creatures will choose on my view no matter what your point of the "randomness" is. God passively knows how the creatures will choose, and God predetermines everything else.

Once again, I think one can apply the metaphor with some descriptiveness. Unlike with coins our choices do have memories and we become formed in our habits so that we will tend to glorify or pain God with our actions that were initially to an extent freely chosen.

This is what is so amazing to me about Open theism. It starts out as a theory that preserves human freedom, and then faced with certain issues of God's providence, it turns into one which endorses a kind of compatibilism. I'm not saying that such isnt the case in some situations (addictions? i dont know) but the Molinist ends up seeing more freedom in their system, than the Open Theist does when it comes to God being Provident down to the smallest detail.

Yes, did you read mine, I said, "our differences then revolve around how we use the word Sovereignty. Sovereignty can mean decision-making, rendering the undetermined determined."

I think this def'n of sovereignty is the more common notion of sovereignty and one in which God kenoptically gives up some of God's sovereignty, while still upholding existence and ensuring that the end is secure.

Thats not what Sovereignty is. Its about God's Rule over the Kosmos. I dont think this means that God exhaustive CAUSES everything in the Universe, but it means that at least, God permits everything in the Universe. That is, God may permit certain things that occur would occur via other causes.

The problem is that we don't deal with too many "will-be"s in regard to the future. We deal with a lot more "may-be"s. You are arguing from the part to the whole, I believe. Just because we change the future in some respects does not mean we can change the future in all respects. Or, alternatively, just because some important aspects of the future cannot be changed due to God's sovereignty does not imply that other aspects of the future can or could have been changed. There is no logical contradiction here, just a contradiction of the supposition that the future is composed only of "will-be"s.

Okay, I have already said (didnt i?) that we cannot "change the future". I said, we can determine how the future will be in the present. But we cannot make it the case that something which will be in the future, will not be.

You are saying that there arent any "will be"s in the future. But that is precisely incorrect (and i believe arrived at thorugh your bad OVT metaphysics). If there is a proposition today,

(R) infide will go to Church tomorrow.

And tomorrow I go to the Church, then, we know that the proposition (R), was true, even thought (R) is about the future, and is contingent. the term "will" in my statement does not denote necessity to my going to Church, it denotes that it is inflecting the verb into the future. (have gone, am going, will go). It does not mean:

(S) infide will necessarily go to Church tomorrow.

which, if I am free, is false today.

I don't understand what you mean by "it is entirely possible that something could be described with a "will" and also be completely contingent".

This is what I'm talking about above. "will" does not mean "will necessarily" ("must") it just means that it is something in the future.

How would you know what God does and doesn't do? Honestly, does it really matter whether or not God operates with a contingency plan or just knows the outcomes wrt God's ultimate sovereignty? All of our knowledge of God is anthropomorphic. The Bible is full of anthropomorphic models of God and that is ultimate rationale for viewing God's knowledge as such. The Calvinistic understanding of God, on the other hand, is far more like the view of God of Aristotle.

I think it does matter in certain cases. Youre correct that the Bible is full of anthropomorphisms, but that is why you shouldnt be an Open Theist, because openness theology takes an overly literal approach to anthropomorphic descriptions of God.

Further, it doesnt mean anything if Calvin's view looks like Aristotles. Aristotle believed in one God. Does that mean anyone who believes in one God is wrong, since they believe like Aristotle did? But i agree with you Calvin's view of Sovereignty and predestination were incorrect. But its not because of Greek thought.

Once more, we only deal with the much more complicated reality through simplified models, as we only see in part. The Nash Equilibirium presumes both players are using the strategy. In reality, we know that there is not parity between the ultimate rivals, God and Satan and that Satan has already made the wrong move that guarantees he will lose. The purpose of the analogy is to show how we can have certainty about the final outcome without having certainty about what the next move the opposition will make.

Inasmuch as God truly is omniscient in the sense of knowing all possible states and the optimal response to them all then yes the chess analogy works and we can be assured that the future is secured, despite our ability as the Church to fumble in our role.

Thats not the point. It doesnt matter if it COULD be the case that given the OVT view of God that God could still do godly things. I dont really care that much about that. The question is DOES God have the revisionist version of Omniscience? And in my view, the answer is no. God has classical Omniscience, knowledge of all true propositions, and knowledge of no false ones.

Yes, but God also affects what states may occur and ensures that only those states that do not ultimately impede God's final victory will have a non-zero chance of happening.

In which case, it really doesn't matter whether he knows exactly what I'll be typing next kafslkdfhaosdjgihasdkltrfjas;dlkajsd;lkth or not.

It does matter if God is truly omniscient. Just because you feel that you can type random things and make unpredictable actions, doesnt mean that God didnt know that "Love-Warrior would type 'kafslkdfhaosdjgihasdkltrfjas;dlkajsd;lkth' in order to try to prove his unpredictability". God knows EVEN this. And it doesnt matter if that knowledge is needed by God or not, it matters that God knows everything.

We are working from a view that is geared to the establishment of God's kingship as our privilege as Christians. We are necessarily limited in our knowledge of God by what has been revealed to us in Scripture and God's creation. I don't see the point being the maximizing of God's nature, but rather holding true to the biblical portrait of God as being Good and there being truly gratuitous evil that Jesus had to die at the cross to overcome. This biblical portrait then would seem to imply that God must have self-limited God's greatness in some respects. We can only presume that God knew why this self-limitation was justified.

You youself just admitted above that there are anthropomorphisms in Scripture. So no, God did not self-limit any of His attributes, its just that humans described God as such, in human-limitedness terms.

The idea of maximizing our theology wherever possible is because of the simple fact that humans only grasp at God's greatness. So if God is the greatest conceivable being, then if we could ever think of a greater concept than the one we started with, than that description would be the greatest conceivable being, and thus be the description of God.

Further, taking anthropomorphic portrayals of God seriously would lead to contradictory and defunct views of God (some of these portrayals say God is even ignorany of present-tense truths). It also is incredibly difficult to have a compelling account of God's Providence on the Open View, and this involves God's using of evil acts for His purposes.

You're referring to whether the God of Calvinists can change the past? Well, as I understand it many Calvinists do in fact think that God is outside of time and that OVTheism puts God in a box by saying God doesn't have Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge. In that case, asking whether God can change the past shows that they too are putting God in a box and prescribing limitations on what God can and cannot do.

You yourself seem to imply that God can change neither the past or the future, which seems to leave God more impotent than sovereign in my book.

:lol:, no man. This doesnt make God impotent of anything (except logically impossible states of affairs - the standard definition of Omnipotence). It is a matter of the passage of time and of truth, basic laws of logic. What I am saying, is that if you believe God cannot know the future (propositions about what 'will be" the case) then you also must deny that God cannot know the past, since both past and future do not exist on a presentist view.

Past events exist in the past, which is knowable in a way that the future isn't knowable. Tag you're it. (Don't you sometimes feel like we're chasing each other's tails in these debates?)

propositions about the past EXIST IN THE PRESENT. Thats my point. Just like propositions about the future EXIST IN THE PRESENT. so, therefore, there is absolutely no metaphysical reason to deny that there are propositions about the contingent future, just as there is no metaphysical reason to deny that there are propositions about what was the contingent past.

Is God free in these models to alter what our choices will be? Because that's the rub, as I understand it. Molinism postulate a set of possible universes from which God chooses the best, but this leaves open the question of from whence comes the set of possible universes or the criterion by which they are ranked? If the ultimate source is God then God is still ultimately responsible for what actually is actualized.

Molinism does NOT allow that God could be responsible for which contingent facts about human decisions are true and which are false. Molinism DOES propose that God Sovereignly decides which true contingent facts become actual, and which do not. (by causing them to obtain, do you understand the difference?)

It's like Lewis saying that we need to pain as a trumpet rouse us out of our deafness without dealing with the question of why we are deaf in the first place. It doesn't ultimately dispatch the problem of evil.

C.S. Lewis (who wasnt a Molinist, to my knowledge) is only answering half of how I would answer the PoE. First, God uses evil and pain for His purposes (like Lewis says here). Second, God does not cause evil in any way, except for permitting agents to do so in His general concurrence - upholding the creaturely natures and wills.

God didnt cause evil, but He will do something about it.

OVTheists are more concerned with the reality of evil. There is no need to account for intellectually why seeming gratuitous incidents of evil happen and that is the meaning of the problem of evil as I used it.

yes there is. The whole point of the Problem of Evil, is an intellectual one. Non-Theists of all varieties use the PoE as a weapon against the Theist, and we must have intellectual answers.

It does not commit the genetic fallacy, inasmuch as the notion of God knowing everything exhaustively definitively can be rejected on other grounds. It does account for a willingness to part ways with a notion that has been construed as orthodox for a good portion of Church history, inasmuch as that history is not understood as being teleologically being led by the Holy Spirit, as with the Constantinization of the Church and its institutionalization of anti-semitism and racism at certain points.

So, youre saying that God wasnt leading the Church Providentially!? Are you really prepared to spit in the face of the entire history of those who went before you?

By hey Sorry man, Molinism doesn't cut the mustard as there is really no intrinsic need to affirm God's exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all things to do biblical theology that equips us to help further establish the kingship of God. Molinism tries to have its cake and eat it too and more importantly it doesn't necessarily help with the pastoral approach to the problem of evil, which ought to be based on how we ultimately understand evil as the logical is fundamentally based on what is practical/useful/pastoral.

And Open Theism HELPS with pastoring in terms of evil? thats amazing to me. The Molinist says "God knew you would go through this, and will providentially make good of this, in this life or the next" and the Open Theist says, "God didnt even know you would be here for sure. It could be random and pointless evil. We dont even know if God knows how much more evil you might go through. But dont worry anyway."

I think Molinism is MUCH more helpful and comforting in terms of pastoring the suffering. its also more Biblical, because God is in Control, and works all things for the good of those who Love Him.

And yes, Molinism has its cake and eats it too, because it can! Molinism was developed by Luis de Molina to combat the extreme views of the Reformers (who were denying free will) and reconciles God's Providence with a strong account (libertarian) of human freedom. And in terms of making your case, Molinism is your biggest opponent, because OVT denies Sovereignty (or freedom) for the sake of the other, and Molinism need not deny either. Its clearly superior, in my opinion to answer such questions.

Churches must do theology as part of their ministry as doxy and praxy are inevitably interwoven. The point is that many past systematic theological answers to questions were not exactly based on the Bible, but rather particular interpretations of parts of the Bible that were in conflict with the biblical worldview. I am thinking here of the word the elect and predestination as they are found in the New Testament. As I have learned as a seminary student, elect refers to the remnant of the faithful. It is a group of individuals, but not per se a specific group of specific individuals. Calvin and later Calvinist writers may have gotten things wrong by virtue of their removal from the 1st century jewish culture that the Bible was written in.

That wasnt the only way the term "the elect" was used, by the way. For example, Israel was called "the elect", the chosen nation. But guess what, I'm not a Calvinist, so it doesnt much matter.

Now, as far as things being in conflict with the Biblical Worldview, what are you thinking is the conflict? God's foreknowledge or God's Omniscience? I mean really, just because we dont have explicit Biblical statements on these issues, does not mean that classical theology is in anyway anti-Biblical. That is a case that will have to be made with better support than "it looks a lot like Greek thought". Prove Greek thought was wrong.

The only implication of not everything being predetermined is that God no longer has EDF and God's omniscience is modal and applies to all that is knowable.

Is that the Only implication? The problem is, we are not allowed to change the meaning of words in order to suit our theologies. Omniscience has a particular meaning - the question is not what Omniscience means, it is whether God is Omniscient or not. In those terms, if God has no knowledge of some true proposition (like a conditional contingent future proposition about free will decisions) then God is not Omniscient.

Further, God can hold no false proposition. like, "God believes that Israel will produce good grapes".

The Open View posits both - that God is ignorant of some true propositions and that God holds false beliefs. Thus, Open Theism denies God's Omniscience.

The fact that much of Christian history, this notion would have been seen as heterodox does not mean it is not true. There are many things about christian history that have been very undesirable, as I'm sure they OP poster would be able to testify to.

But it does mean that in order for you to be correct, the entire history of Christian thought would have been incorrect.

I think the real difficulty with OVTheism is that it forces us to cope with suffering differently. A lot of the beliefs that God knows the future is about providing a psychic balm to our own fears about the immediate future. And a lot of beliefs in human freedom have resulted in existential angst. I can testify that when I first graduated from college as an OVTheist thanks in part to my studies under Boyd, that I became beset with angst that was somewhat derivative from my changed theological beliefs. Bad and Good things came from that and my views matured to the point where I affirm with Mother Teresa that I believe with all my heart that God will never let anything happen to me that God and I cannot handle together, I just wish God didn't trust me so much...!
peace,
dlw

Just because some truths about God provide comfort does not mean they were invented for "psychic balm" to apply to our fears. Remember what the apostles said - Perfect Love casts out all fear. God is Perfect Love. So, maybe all the angst you have gone through was because of Boyd leading you astray from the peace and comfort of who God really is.

i dont say that to be apathetic. i just dont think just because you studied under him that he was necessarily right. There is so much good work being done with Molinism, that i would hope you would give it a chance.

peace,
jd

[Da Lone-Warrior]

Because of a few things. For one, since you believe there are "facts" that exist, but are just unknowable, then your view of Omniscience might make humans Omniscient.

It "might" make humans Omniscient, but since we don't have the recall of God and history tends to be a long-memory process then it's not likely.

Because humans seem to lack knowledge of many things that are "unknowable" for them. This is knowledge from what is called "negative theology". Then, from "greatest being" theology, we must ask why and where the knowledge of God's Omniscience comes from. It comes from Greatest Being Theology (Scripture says that God knows a lot, and has foreknowledge, but it never explains the details of this). And thus, greatest being theology could help us understand the nature of this attribute. But it seems that a being with omniscience in every possible world, is greater (and that property is greater) than a being with omniscience in a certain world.

In every possible world, omniscience would still only apply to that which was knowable in that world. What even God cannot do is to be in every possible world, and so God sees the future, from within the context of our actual world, as possible worlds, just like we do, but with a lot more clarity.

Secondly, most Open Theists are a little more creative, and say, "no, there just is no facts to be known in the future". To this, we must ask them "why?", and i think several things demonstrate why this is not the case.

Well, hardly any "facts" can be known with certainty by us even in the present, but we do our best. I have never heard any of the better OVTheists say anything that inane.

yeah, in the case of Molinism that is exactly the case, because God does not determine the counterfacts that He knows. That is, God doesnt determine "this is how creature C would choose in S" where S is some set of circumstances. Rather God just has knowledge about how all creatures C would choose. He knows, but does not determine those things.

What does determine those things if not past S', and what determines S' but S'' and so on..s? Somebody/thing's gonna have to bite the bullet and take responsibility for setting various "deterministic" causal sequences in motion at some point. I put the blame for the failure of Christianity since Christ on the non-predetermined choices of us Christians, particularly our leaders.

Freedom is built into the Molinistic scheme, because God's knowledge is about how free creatures freely choose.

Too bad it doesn't also build in Responsibility for God or for us free creatures who just choose what we're gonna choose in a given situation.

God doesnt predetermine how creatures will choose on my view no matter what your point of the "randomness" is. God passively knows how the creatures will choose, and God predetermines everything else.

Whooh boy, where do you cut the line between what God predetermines and what God just knows because its predetermined by "other stuff"?

This is what is so amazing to me about Open theism. It starts out as a theory that preserves human freedom, and then faced with certain issues of God's providence, it turns into one which endorses a kind of compatibilism. I'm not saying that such isnt the case in some situations (addictions? i dont know) but the Molinist ends up seeing more freedom in their system, than the Open Theist does when it comes to God being Provident down to the smallest detail.

It's true for many choices, we form habits of action/thought that eventually we have a much harder time changing. That is why it is so important to reach people with the message of Christianity when they are youths, because it's a lot harder to accept the message when you are older.

OVTheism doesn't call for radical indeterminism, just that we do make choices in our lives that were not predetermined for us and that could have been made differently. You can't really prove or disprove this, because you can't put replicate and put people in test tubes or cages and run controlled experiments on them.

Thats not what Sovereignty is. Its about God's Rule over the Kosmos. I dont think this means that God exhaustive CAUSES everything in the Universe, but it means that at least, God permits everything in the Universe. That is, God may permit certain things that occur would occur via other causes.

I'm glad you know what Sovereignty really is, did God or an Angel tell you that :wink:? What do you associate with Rule? I've taken and taught courses in gov't and the def'n we used entails decision-making most of the time. How does one permit or not permit something to happen without deciding if it will happen?

Okay, I have already said (didnt i?) that we cannot "change the future". I said, we can determine how the future will be in the present. But we cannot make it the case that something which will be in the future, will not be.

[Forrest Gump Voice]Well, I'm not a systematic theologian, but I know what a tautology is![/Forrest Gump Voice] Dude, the issue is not whether we can change "will be"s of the future, but whether the future is exhaustively composed of "will be"s.

You are saying that there arent any "will be"s in the future. But that is precisely incorrect (and i believe arrived at thorugh your bad OVT metaphysics). If there is a proposition today,

I ain't saying there ain't no "will be"s in the future, that would be certainly incorrect. All I'm saying is there are "may be"s in the future, even from the vaunted omniscient viewpoint of God.

This is what I'm talking about above. "will" does not mean "will necessarily" ("must") it just means that it is something in the future.

okay, I see where you're coming from, I still don't see any biblical basis for Christians believing that that actually is the case.

I think it does matter in certain cases. Youre correct that the Bible is full of anthropomorphisms, but that is why you shouldnt be an Open Theist, because openness theology takes an overly literal approach to anthropomorphic descriptions of God.

How does one judge that it something is "overly literal"? What are the hermeneutical principles for our understanding of the Bible? I believe the proper hermeneutic is to seek the literal interpretation as it would have been understood by the original audience. Others have interpreted the Bible from the lense of a creed, but this violates Mark 7:7 and bases our interpretations from rules/creeds created by men that have been shown to be fallible in the past. I see it as like this:Does it really matter whether God knew exactly how Israel would respond to Moses' call for them to follow him to the promised land, or does it matter that they would follow and God would be true to God's promise to Abraham?

Further, it doesnt mean anything if Calvin's view looks like Aristotles. Aristotle believed in one God. Does that mean anyone who believes in one God is wrong, since they believe like Aristotle did? But i agree with you Calvin's view of Sovereignty and predestination were incorrect. But its not because of Greek thought.

Well the theory of mimesis would suggest that the vast bulk of our theology is a matter of deciding on whose shoulders do we wish to stand, rather than us reinventing the wheel or just rethinking the thoughts of God. As such, it doesn't matter whether Calvin appropriate his notion of God from Aristotle, but given their chronological ordering it's quite possible he appropriated it from someone(maybe Augustine) who may have failed to fully switch from their Hellenistic world view when they became a Christian.

[/quote]Thats not the point. It doesnt matter if it COULD be the case that given the OVT view of God that God could still do godly things. I dont really care that much about that. The question is DOES God have the revisionist version of Omniscience? And in my view, the answer is no. God has classical Omniscience, knowledge of all true propositions, and knowledge of no false ones.[/quote]

How do you know that the classical Omniscience is not a revisionist notion in and of itself? I don't see any biblical reason to view reality/knowledge as composed of true or false propositions. Newtonian Physics is strictly not true, but it still pervades our understanding of our world, consider the duality of light being understood as having the properties of a particle and a wave. We conceptualize its complex nature by virtue of selective reference to concepts that were developed within the Newtonian worldview.

So get with it, determinism, in the ultimate sense, is so much like last century. :smile:

It does matter if God is truly omniscient. Just because you feel that you can type random things and make unpredictable actions, doesnt mean that God didnt know that "Love-Warrior would type 'kafslkdfhaosdjgihasdkltrfjas;dlkajsd;lkth' in order to try to prove his unpredictability". God knows EVEN this. And it doesnt matter if that knowledge is needed by God or not, it matters that God knows everything.

Why would God need to prove God's unpredictability? I thought God, in human form some 2,000 years ago, asked us to let our yes be yes and our no be no? And, in case you didn't notice, you have yet to state why it ultimately does matter if God is truly omniscient. Please, inquiring minds would like to know.

You youself just admitted above that there are anthropomorphisms in Scripture. So no, God did not self-limit any of His attributes, its just that humans described God as such, in human-limitedness terms.

Just because anthropomorphism are "fuzzy" doesn't mean they are not "true". We don't really have any sure foundation from which to correct the human descriptions of God as such. The biblical passages appealed to by calvinists/molinists are themselves in contest as to whether such interpretations truly reflect the proper context and cotext.

The idea of maximizing our theology wherever possible is because of the simple fact that humans only grasp at God's greatness. So if God is the greatest conceivable being, then if we could ever think of a greater concept than the one we started with, than that description would be the greatest conceivable being, and thus be the description of God.

Gee and what if we change our mind about what would be greatest? In my book, we need to do biblical, practical theology that benefits from systems theory. We can't base it on metaphysical presuppositions whose biblical origins are obscure.

Further, taking anthropomorphic portrayals of God seriously would lead to contradictory and defunct views of God (some of these portrayals say God is even ignorany of present-tense truths). It also is incredibly difficult to have a compelling account of God's Providence on the Open View, and this involves God's using of evil acts for His purposes.

We can still also take into account Speech-Act theory, where often what is more important is not what a speech act, or locution, refers to about reality but rather what it intends to accomplish, its illocution. As such, when God says "Where are you", in Genesis its significance is not what it implies about what God knew, but rather its expression of how the covenantal relationship between God and Humanity had been changed/broken. God is expressing how what had existed before was broken/changed, Humans were not dwelling in the presence of the Lord God as they had.

I don't know what you mean about God not having a compelling providence with the OVT. I guess you mean you're not sure how God can guide us and ensure the future within the OVT. I don't see why this matters though for what actually is true. Perhaps if you took a course in Thermodynamics, or dynamic game-theory, it would broaden your world-view. I have no problems seeing God as the master Chess player or the stock-analyst with the optimal strategy for every conceivable state of the world. And all my faith requires is for the Lord God who has been faithful in the past to be faithful in the future in ensuring that ultimately God's will will be on earth as it is in heaven.

Now why would God in the form of Jesus tell us to pray for God's will to be on earth if it was already in the forms of countless "will be"s? Why does Jesus seemingly anthropomorphize for us non-Molinists the notion of petitionary prayer or that we would be wielding the keys to the kingdom or what-not?

:lol:, no man. This doesnt make God impotent of anything (except logically impossible states of affairs - the standard definition of Omnipotence). It is a matter of the passage of time and of truth, basic laws of logic. What I am saying, is that if you believe God cannot know the future (propositions about what 'will be" the case) then you also must deny that God cannot know the past, since both past and future do not exist on a presentist view.

Actually I don't really get your notion of God's sovereignty and it seems you prefer to restrict God to particular notion of what is logic(ally possible/impossible) that tends to exclude the middle. Last I heard over at Notre Dame, the logicians taught a wide variety of systems of logic and so I don't think I'm off-based in doubting that your supposed basic laws of logic are necessarily so.

I do believe that God cannot know the future in the same exhaustive manner as God does know the past, in part because I do not have a presentist view and I do not see any biblical justification for such a view. As I understand it, the God of the OT is the God who acts in History and holds true to the promises of the past, even when we humans seriously fall short, God still holds out in judgement, so long as there is hope for us to repent and return to obedience.

propositions about the past EXIST IN THE PRESENT. Thats my point. Just like propositions about the future EXIST IN THE PRESENT. so, therefore, there is absolutely no metaphysical reason to deny that there are propositions about the contingent future, just as there is no metaphysical reason to deny that there are propositions about what was the contingent past.

But the present when you wrote the above is now the past as I'm writing this, which will be in the past at the presently future point when you read this. (try saying that 3 times fast)

I think the issue here is the underlying metaphysics, though, and why Christians should consider them as normative in how we understand our world.

Molinism does NOT allow that God could be responsible for which contingent facts about human decisions are true and which are false. Molinism DOES propose that God Sovereignly decides which true contingent facts become actual, and which do not. (by causing them to obtain, do you understand the difference?)

First sentence makes no sense to me. I think we're abusing "facts-speak" and Sovereignty to avoid making statements like, "well, therefore, this must be the best of all possible worlds!" Cuz, ya know if God caused it to obtain then who are we to disagree? And the fact of the matter is that evidence(somewhat detailed in "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" by Ron Sider) does indicate that Christianity is on the decline in the US, not completely unlike how it declined in Europe, but this may or may not imply that it will persist in declining. It will continue to persist if Christian leaders, like those here at TWeb, refuse to recognize that their fallible governance is in need of adjustment.

C.S. Lewis (who wasnt a Molinist, to my knowledge) is only answering half of how I would answer the PoE. First, God uses evil and pain for His purposes (like Lewis says here). Second, God does not cause evil in any way, except for permitting agents to do so in His general concurrence - upholding the creaturely natures and wills.

Are you eating your cake right now or are you obtaining it....[Forrest Gump Voice]Or Both, Both at the Same Time[/Forrest Gump Voice]?

God didnt cause evil, but He will do something about it.

Yes, God didn't cause evil, or cause the contingent reality that includes so much evil to obtain, and God will do something about it of that we can be be certain of. The question is whether we need to be certain of whole lot of other stuff that would be incidental to that.

yes there is. The whole point of the Problem of Evil, is an intellectual one. Non-Theists of all varieties use the PoE as a weapon against the Theist, and we must have intellectual answers.

We also have intellectual answers, they just differ from yours. And, as I understand it, the intellectual and practical aren't that easily separable and there doesn't seem to much of practical value/implications of Molinism besides the rush from defending the Greatest-Conceivable Being notion of God. Non-theists cannot use the PoE against OVT because in our theodicies such a problem does not exist. It is part of Church History, as it should be.

So, youre saying that God wasnt leading the Church Providentially!? Are you really prepared to spit in the face of the entire history of those who went before you?

Not in the teleological sense. I don't see this as spitting in the face of the entire church history and unless you're the top church historian in the world, you shouldn't imply such. It does suggest that there is necessarily some ambiguity in the evaluation of past church tradition/theological precedent. But if we are honest with ourselves, we will see that there was a fair amount of diversity in these regards in the past, as there still is in the present and will be in the future. And if we did and do get our knowledge about God "wrong" that, in and of itself, does not mean we do know of God and accept God's gracious gift of salvation, Right? After all, it did take, and still is taking, a while for us Christians to come to the full realization of the Truth of Molinism?

And Open Theism HELPS with pastoring in terms of evil? thats amazing to me. The Molinist says "God knew you would go through this, and will providentially make good of this, in this life or the next" and the Open Theist says, "God didnt even know you would be here for sure. It could be random and pointless evil. We dont even know if God knows how much more evil you might go through. But dont worry anyway."

We don't need to know something was known that it was going to happen to cope with the trauma of its aftermath and we don't need to presume God knows the future in its entirety to point to Matthew 6. The OVTheist points to the Cross and how God too knows what it is like to suffer and promises that our sufferings will not be final and that we shall be restored into communion with the Lord God if we believe. The OVTheists point to Luke 13 and say that we need not torture ourselves over why tragedies happen, but do need to repent or we shall perish. The OVTheists point to the need to grieve, and even get angry, as demonstrated in the Psalms, and how Jesus himself sighed over Mary's lack of faith when Jesus showed up intentionally late to keep her brother Lazarus from dying.

Our pastoral approach to evil is immanent and bibliocentric, while intellectually justified by our rejection of the validity of the problem of evil rather than the reality of evil and the existence of there being some ambiguity in what exactly we believe about God's sovereignty.

I think Molinism is MUCH more helpful and comforting in terms of pastoring the suffering. its also more Biblical, because God is in Control, and works all things for the good of those who Love Him.

But is the manner in which God is posited as being in control biblical? And does working all things that hapen for the good imply God made the entire reality obtain? Or might it mean God is able to work whatever outcome God has allowed the possibility to obtain for the good...?

And yes, Molinism has its cake and eats it too, because it can!

But the cake it bends itself over to obtain ain't worth it, given it presumes the absence of ultimately gratuitous evil. You get into theological debates that kind of boil down to statements like, "My God is the Greatest Conceivable Being!" "No, my God is Greater!" "It is not!" "Is Too!" "Is not!" "Alright, that's it, how do you like your hemlock?" If you don't think that's the case, I'd suggest reading what the theologian Roger Olson (http://www.generousorthodoxy.net/thinktank/files/postconservative.pdf) has written about Post-Conservative Evangelical Theology ten-years after he first wrote about the idea. We don't bear a good witness to others when we invest so much energy into systems built on metaphysical ontologies that we persecute each other over matters on which there is room for legitimate disagreement.

Molinism was developed by Luis de Molina to combat the extreme views of the Reformers (who were denying free will) and reconciles God's Providence with a strong account (libertarian) of human freedom. And in terms of making your case, Molinism is your biggest opponent, because OVT denies Sovereignty (or freedom) for the sake of the other, and Molinism need not deny either. Its clearly superior, in my opinion to answer such questions.

We don't need to defend the way in which God's Providence was conceived of in the past, inasmuch as that may reflect more the particular manner in which Christianity developed in Europe rather than absolute Truths derived from seeking how the Bible was literally understood by its original audience.
The African-American Church has never had this hang-up over God's Sovereignty because their traditions have been different and stem from a position of emerging from a fallen state of slavery and oppression, as opposed to our positions as the benefactors of slavery and oppressors, often justified by appeals to God's ultimate sovereignty and misreadings of scripture that failed to consider the importance of contextual considerations.

That wasnt the only way the term "the elect" was used, by the way. For example, Israel was called "the elect", the chosen nation. But guess what, I'm not a Calvinist, so it doesnt much matter.

Same story, though. It's a group of individuals, not a specific group of specific individuals. And you're notion of Sovereignty bears a fair amount of similarity to that of the Calvinists.

Now, as far as things being in conflict with the Biblical Worldview, what are you thinking is the conflict? God's foreknowledge or God's Omniscience? I mean really, just because we dont have explicit Biblical statements on these issues, does not mean that classical theology is in anyway anti-Biblical. That is a case that will have to be made with better support than "it looks a lot like Greek thought". Prove Greek thought was wrong.

Well there are many aspects of Greek thought that are very much in conflict with Hebraic thought. Our souls are not inherently immortal in Hebraic thought. You don't see that in the OT. God is not portrayed as standing outside time, immutable, in the OT. We are created beings who have fallen and are in the process of redemption and what the process entails is messy, inasmuch as even after everything that the Lord God has done for Israel, they fall away repeatedly, though a remnant always persists. We see in Jesus with his baptism, 40 days in the desert in prayer and selection of 12 apostles that he is proclaiming himself true Israel, the son of Man, not just of David. He is accomplishing with his life/teaching/death/resurrection much of what was expected for Israel, to be a light to all the nations. This is why the Pharisees, Scribes, and the Sadducees were able to put aside their mutual hatred and work together to kill Jesus, because his message was radically challenging their ethnocentric worldviews that elevated the letter of the received laws and their elaborations over its spirit in binding them to the covenants made with their ancestors.

But none of this, in anyway, depends on a notion that the future is exhaustively definitively foreknown by God. That presupposition is incidental to the account and seems to imply a contradiction to the "anthropomorphic" testimonies to the reality of evil in the ministry of Jesus as recorded in the Bible?

Is that the Only implication? The problem is, we are not allowed to change the meaning of words in order to suit our theologies. Omniscience has a particular meaning - the question is not what Omniscience means, it is whether God is Omniscient or not. In those terms, if God has no knowledge of some true proposition (like a conditional contingent future proposition about free will decisions) then God is not Omniscient.

The problem is not that we are changing the meanings of words, but rather that we enfused ourselves with the doctrinal beliefs previously associated with the words in the first place. Inasmuch as I do not believe that church traditions/theologies were teleologically led by the Holy Spirit, I am not bound to hold to past understandings to do biblical, practical theology that benefits from systems theory. The meanings of words are not fixed time immemorial. They changed in the past, as a more thorough study of the history of theology would show you, and they will change some again. The Bible does not weld a Christian to an epistemology where there are only true or false propositions.

Further, God can hold no false proposition. like, "God believes that Israel will produce good grapes".

The Open View posits both - that God is ignorant of some true propositions and that God holds false beliefs. Thus, Open Theism denies God's Omniscience.

When we speak of the future, "will be"s don't characterize exhaustively the sorts of understandings that are necessary for God to remain true to God's promises to humanity that were first made to Abraham and brough about through the nation of Israel and Jesus' birth/life/death/resurrection/Pentecost.

But it does mean that in order for you to be correct, the entire history of Christian thought would have been incorrect.

Once more, it's not an all or nothing thing and the history of Christian thought is quite complicated. There are precursors of OVTheism, just like there were precursors of Molinism. Maybe not exactly the same ways we now formulate them(like, for example, they probably wouldn't refer to Nash's equilibrium or to the formation of contingent strategies for action in every possible state of nature), but with enough similarity that the innovation is not as dramatic as we historically-challenged white USAmerican Evangelicals might like to think they are.

Just because some truths about God provide comfort does not mean they were invented for "psychic balm" to apply to our fears. Remember what the apostles said - Perfect Love casts out all fear. God is Perfect Love. So, maybe all the angst you have gone through was because of Boyd leading you astray from the peace and comfort of who God really is.

The issue is that we do need psychic balms to deal with our fears and we've elaborated beyond that which was given to us in Matt 6. My existential angst in the past was from my finite imperfect understanding of the implications of OVTheism and the need for faith and how I should deal with the changes I needed to make in my life in dealing with the repercussions of choices I had made earlier in reaction to incidences of physical and social trauma in my past.

Molinism offers me nothing in dealing with that now. I have no need to affirm its notion of God's sovereignty for my ongoing deliberations on how best I should be letting my light shine in conjunction with the Christian (and Non-Christian) communities that I interact with and belong to.

i dont say that to be apathetic. i just dont think just because you studied under him that he was necessarily right. There is so much good work being done with Molinism, that i would hope you would give it a chance.

peace,
jd
I agree that just because I studied under Boyd doesn't make him right. It does inevitably influence my theological path, which has come to diverge a bit from that of Boyd's in some ways. I think his Spiritual Warfare Theodicy is too idealistic and manicheistic. He relies too much on Yoder-style Anabaptist wishful thinking about Church-State relations and doesn't acknowledge the specificity of his theological position enough. He tends to espouse what I would call a naive realism that isn't critical of how the frames we choose to do theology in impact how we approach ultimate reality.

dlw