Logic, Foreknowlege and Open Theism

[Trinitarian]

Recently, I've been giving some thought to some of the issues surrounding Open Theism. And there seems to be a major logical flaw in their overall position. First, both sides agree that God knows everything that can be known. Normative Theists maintian that this entails God's complete knowledge of the future. Open Theists maintain that either 1) the future is not a 'thing' that can be known, or 2) that God chooses to limit his knowledge of the future to make room for (libertarian) free will.

#2 is the easiest the refute in that it denies the Biblical statements that God knows all things (1 Jn. 3:20) anc thus cannot be held by Christians committed to the authority of Scritpture. By holding that God limits his knowledge of the future, it is conceded the the future is something that God could know if he chose to and therefor he does not know everything that can be known. Thus, that position is untenable.

#1 is more difficult, but only slightly. This form of Open Theism must claim that the future is not something that can be known at all, thus God still knows everything that can be known. However, no Open Theist that I know of has argued this postions consistently. They all refer to the future as "partly open, partly closed." Greg Boyd in his book Satan and the Problem of Evil states that there were many things that God did foreknow and predestine, such as the coming of Christ, his death on the Cross, the betrayal of Judas, Peter's denial, etc. Thus Boyd (and Pinnock makes similar statements) acknowledges that the future is knowable by God. Thus, if we acknowlege the biblical statments that God knows everything, then God must know the totality of the future.

On these grounds, then, Open Theism is logically and biblically impossible in that it must either deny that God ever foreknew anything about the future, or that God knows all things.

Grace and Peace.

[yxboom]

#1> Not when God knows what He will do concerning future events vs. knowing what you will do in the future.
Its entirely seperated from another.

[geebob]

#2 is the easiest the refute in that it denies the Biblical statements that God knows all things (1 Jn. 3:20)

What kind of limits are we talking about? Is it that there is an established fact of the matter about the future but God has choosen not to know it? There are no major open theists who believe this (with the possible exception of clark Pinnock, though I suspect that he is more in line with Hasker), though there are some. Of course this position doesn't solve the problem as the problem was never really God's foreknowledge.

Or is it the limit that Hasker suggests that he argues comes from the implications of an infallible God combined with the existence of soft facts. Soft facts can change their truth value, and no doubt, if there are soft facts do to freedom, their truth values have indeed changed. Since God's knowledge cannot fail, says Hasker, he cannot know the truth values of soft facts until they become future indifferent. But that doesn't mean that he can't know for instance, the probability that a soft fact will become true or not and in that he knows the soft fact better than we could ever hope to know. So still, although he doesn't know this minor detail in the world he created, it could still be claimed that God knows everything in that there is nothing significant that he doesn't know, provided truth values of soft facts are not that significant compared to the the probabilities of how they might turn out in the end which is more substantial, I see no reason to see that they are.


1) the future is not a 'thing' that can be known...
...#1 is more difficult, but only slightly. This form of Open Theism must claim that the future is not something that can be known at all, thus God still knows everything that can be known.

only with a hard presentism is this necessarily true where there is absolutely no future. A soft presentism, one that I hold, the future exists sufficiently that we may speak of it meaningfully and it's not technically correct to say that the present exclusively exists but rather that the present is ontologically special. The nature of the future is such that it exists as something that is a projection of what is consistently possible with the present, and without determinism, what is projected is in terms of multiple possibilities as well as some certainties.

Greg Boyd is working on something similar to this with his discussions of "conjoined might counterfactuals". Actually, what he discusses is more on the logical and semantical end of things and what I've given could be the metaphysics of that. You could put some what I said into the terms of possible worlds ontology.

Here's a link.

http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=2208

[doogieduff]

Yesterday @ 05:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139065#post139065)
Trinitarian:

They all refer to the future as "partly open, partly closed."

partly open = our free will choices
partly closed = what God has predestined to do, not what He peeked into the future to see

boom hit the nail on the head. God has already decided what He will do and when, and nothing can change that. That's why it's partly closed.

[Solly]

Doogie:
partly open = our free will choices
partly closed = what God has predestined to do, not what He peeked into the future to see


Since no one here said that these events: - the coming of Christ, his death on the Cross, the betrayal of Judas, Peter's denial - where not part of what God can know about the future because he has decided to do them, then doesn't this leave you up the proverbial creek without a paddle, in that they all depend on the free will choices - of Mary, the Romans and Jews, Judas and peter - that might not have happened? Isn't God required to play some sort of probability game, and send multiple Messiahs, until the respective characters in the events got things right?
The argument that God knew their characters is, I presume, no use, since the argument for LFW says, basically, that I don't have to act in a way that is "caused" by my character and circumstances, I can do something different. Unless you wish to say that God somehow knew in what ways the people involved might act, but that is a probabilistic determinsism that limits their field of action down to a few options.

[geebob]

Isn't God required to play some sort of probability game, and send multiple Messiahs, until the respective characters in the events got things right?

Everything you mentioned above was not known until a certain point. Some of those things could have turned out drastically differently.

And there is also the issue to the effect that the authors of the new testament did not view prophetic fulfillment in the same that we do.


The argument that God knew their characters is, I presume, no use, since the argument for LFW says, basically, that I don't have to act in a way that is "caused" by my character and circumstances, I can do something different.

there are two reasons why this is not a problem. ONe is that even if individuals are often not determined, large groups of people often are. There is no contradiction here as statistical mathematics can show that large numbers of indeterministic entities yeild to determinism. This is the current view of quantum mechanics. There's no guarantee of how one electron will wiggle and yet particles as large as amino acids act deterministically.

secondly, I see no problem in affirming that many choices are not libertarian free.

My general definition of free will that would encompass all the various forms of it that I believe exist would be this. One is free with regard to a decision if that decision is funnelled through the will without any determining contraints in the immeadiate temporal context outside of the will.

So when that free decision is compatibilistic, then there is no imeadiate constraint at the moment, but there may be genetic or environmental factors in the past that led to a gaurantee of that decision. Those factors have left a sufficient impression on the will that in the present condition considered, there is a foregone conclusion about what the will will choose.

When it is libertarian, not only is it the case that there are no immeadiate contrants on the will, there are also none at any time in the past. There are no genetic factors or environmental factors that led to a determination.

Now a self determined choice, is further distinguished from these two. In a self determining choice, like the compatibilistic choice, although there is nothing in the imeadiate context which determines the choice there are circumstances in the past that leave impressions on the will such that the will will be gauranteed in how it chooses. unlike the compatibilistic choice, the person who makes the choice had controll over those circumstances in the distant past. In other words, that person made libertarian free choices in the past and those choices played a determing role in what one chooses now.

as an aside, I would insist that a choice must be self determined or libertarian free in order to be a moral choice.

I'll also mention that the reason that I believe in this complicated view of freedom is because I believe that it in fact corresponds to our experience. I believe I make choices all the time where I truly could have and very well might have choosen differently even though all external circumstances and truths about myself where the same. secondly, I feel that I make choices all the time due to a disposition (be it from nature or nurture) that I didn't really control. I don't have control over the fact that I find banana's detestable in almost all forms except within the banana and given a chance to knowingly eat one under normal circumstances (circumstances that for example don't involve one of my grandma's giving me a guilt trip on how they made it just for me) I will always choose the banana.

And many choices that addicted people make are what I have described as self determined. A positive example would be in terms of character developement.

[trueseeker]

God changes things depending on how people act. He was gong to destroy Ninneva, but they repented so He didn't. When He created Adam and Eve, He said that the creation was good. But in Noah's day, He was sorry that He had made man. Abraham was considered a friend of God's, because He was willing to sacrifice His son. Moses wasn't able to enter the promised land because He disobeyed God. etc. etc.

In the same way, if Mary hadn't been willing to do as the Lord told her, the honor of giving birth to Jesus would have passed to another. If Saul would have been too stiffed necked to repent and become Paul the appostle to the gentiles, God would have choosen another or others. God will work toward fulfilling His purposes, but we can choose whether or not to allow Him to work through us as His servants.

[Chappie]

Today @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139432#post139432)
trueseeker:

God changes things depending on how people act. He was gong to destroy Ninneva, but they repented so He didn't. When He created Adam and Eve, He said that the creation was good. But in Noah's day, He was sorry that He had made man. Abraham was considered a friend of God's, because He was willing to sacrifice His son. Moses wasn't able to enter the promised land because He disobeyed God. etc. etc.

In the same way, if Mary hadn't been willing to do as the Lord told her, the honor of giving birth to Jesus would have passed to another. If Saul would have been too stiffed necked to repent and become Paul the appostle to the gentiles, God would have choosen another or others. God will work toward fulfilling His purposes, but we can choose whether or not to allow Him to work through us as His servants.

In that case how do we explain the fact that years before, God had chosen and called by name, Cyrus as the king that would allow Israel to return home. Are we suggesting that he was just one of many Cyruses' that would possibly be a king over the Meado Persian empire?

[yxboom]

Today @ 11:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139487#post139487)
Chappie:



In that case how do we explain the fact that years before, God had chosen and called by name, Cyrus as the king that would allow Israel to return home. Are we suggesting that he was just one of many Cyruses' that would possibly be a king over the Meado Persian empire?

Did God have to override Mary's freewill to name her son, Jesus or Zechariah's freewill to name his son, John?

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139070#post139070)
yxboom:

#1> Not when God knows what He will do concerning future events vs. knowing what you will do in the future.
Its entirely seperated from another.

There's still a logical problem with this in that if God knows what He will do, then how can God have free will on the Open definition?

This is especially problematic with the person of Christ. On the Open view how is it possible that Christ could have had free will as a genuine human? God foreknew that he would come and die. That is not disputed by any open theist that I know of. Thus, I submit that one the Open view it was impossible for Christ to have "genuine" (libertarian) freedom.

Moreover, this whole arguement falls to the ground, if there's even ONE biblical case where God foreknows the future action of anyone other than himself, and this is not difficult to show (see for example Jer. 1:5; 1 Kings 13:2ff).

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 01:33 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139080#post139080)
geebob:

So still, although he doesn't know this minor detail in the world he created, it could still be claimed that God knows everything in that there is nothing significant that he doesn't know, provided truth values of soft facts are not that significant compared to the the probabilities of how they might turn out in the end which is more substantial, I see no reason to see that they are.



(Bold added)

This is a valiant effort, and I respect it, but I still think it is untenable on biblical grounds. All this acomplishes is that God knows everything that is "significant" however that be defined. I don't think that squares with 1 Jn. 2:30 which states God knows everything. Even if it is something "not that significant" that he doesn't know, that still runs contrary to the biblical statement that God knows everything.


only with a hard presentism is this necessarily true where there is absolutely no future. A soft presentism, one that I hold, the future exists sufficiently that we may speak of it meaningfully and it's not technically correct to say that the present exclusively exists but rather that the present is ontologically special. The nature of the future is such that it exists as something that is a projection of what is consistently possible with the present, and without determinism, what is projected is in terms of multiple possibilities as well as some certainties.

So is it possible on this view for God to know any of the the future actions of human free agents? Would the "some certainties" that can be projected ever be able to include certain actions of human persons? Why or why not?

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

There's still a logical problem with this in that if God knows what He will do, then how can God have free will on the Open definition?

He decided for Himself what it is He will do. Where is the inconsistency? I tell you I am going to have a turkey sandwich for lunch tomorrow, it was my own choosing, just as "foreknowledge" based on His determinism to accomplish a thing is God's own choosing.


This is especially problematic with the person of Christ. On the Open view how is it possible that Christ could have had free will as a genuine human?
Did God determine what food Jesus would eat on the third wednesday of the month of passover before the crucifixion?


God foreknew that he would come and die. That is not disputed by any open theist that I know of. Thus, I submit that one the Open view it was impossible for Christ to have "genuine" (libertarian) freedom.

God foreknows that anybody born today will die in a less than 500 years, is that mean their freewill is now void on how they choose to live?


Moreover, this whole arguement falls to the ground, if there's even ONE biblical case where God foreknows the future action of anyone other than himself, and this is not difficult to show (see for example Jer. 1:5; 1 Kings 13:2ff).

Again, God can bring to pass things. It is a matter of being infiintely wise, resourceful and omnipotent to bring about a thing than having to sit back and just know something is going to happen. The Biblical portrait of God is the former.

[Trinitarian]

I don't think your really trying to address my points. On the Open View, did Christ have free will? Did he have the "freedome" to disobey the Father and not died on the Cross?

Moreover the Scriptures I cited (Jer. 1:5; 1 Kings 13:2ff) argue that God did foreknow specific actions of future individuals. If that is the case then the future is a reality that can be known, therefore God must know all of it if he truly knows everything that is knowable.

[yxboom]

Today @ 02:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139617#post139617)
Trinitarian:

I don't think your really trying to address my points. On the Open View, did Christ have free will? Did he have the "freedome" to disobey the Father and not died on the Cross?

The apostle Paul answered that almost 2000 years ago

Philippians 2:8 he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.



Moreover the Scriptures I cited (Jer. 1:5; 1 Kings 13:2ff) argue that God did foreknow specific actions of future individuals. If that is the case then the future is a reality that can be known, therefore God must know all of it if he truly knows everything that is knowable.


Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Turkey Sandwich! I don't think you really read my last response.

1 Kings 13:2 And the man cried against the altar by the word of the LORD and said, "O altar, altar, thus says the LORD: 'Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who make offerings on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.'"

My reply to Chappie:

yxboom:

Did God have to override Mary's freewill to name her son, Jesus or Zechariah's freewill to name his son, John?

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 10:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139621#post139621)
yxboom:



The apostle Paul answered that almost 2000 years ago

Philippians 2:8 he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.




That verse only says what Christ did, not if he had the freedom to do otherwise. You haven't answered my question, did Christ have the freedom to disobey the Father>



Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Turkey Sandwich! I don't think you really read my last response.


I read it, but it doesn't answer anything. This verse says very simply thay God knew Jeremiah before he was concieved, set him apart appointed him as a prophet. This implies all kinds of foreknowlege. God knew that Jeremiah's parents would marry, have sex, conceive a specific child and that child would be a prophet. Thus God knows, at least in this case future actions that are not his own. Therefore the future is a reality that can be known, etc, etc.



1 Kings 13:2 And the man cried against the altar by the word of the LORD and said, O altar, altar, thus says the LORD: 'Behold, a son shall be born to the house of David, Josiah by name, and he shall sacrifice on you the priests of the high places who make offerings on you, and human bones shall be burned on you.'

Did God have to override Mary's freewill to name her son, Jesus or Zechariah's freewill to name his son, John?

This doesn't address the verse in question. Like the Jeremiah passage this prophecy entails that certain people from cerain blodlines marry, copulate and have a child named Josiah, that child in turn is prohpesied to perform specific acts. All of this requires that God forknow these events in order to make this prophecy truthfully. I don't believe that his overrides free will, but that's because I don't hold to Libertarian free will (In which case it would override it).

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

That verse only says what Christ did, not if he had the freedom to do otherwise. You haven't answered my question, did Christ have the freedom to disobey the Father

You don't need to analyze the passage to get it. Christ humbled Himself (agreed?) and became obedient even to a death on a cross (agreed?).
If you agree than I ask, how is it conceivable that Christ humbled Himself? If there is one option that He be humble then how did he humble Himself, that would be like digging a 10 foot hole with only 9 feet of dirt. Additionally, how did Christ BECOME obedient if there was but one option that He BE obedient? Without an alternative there is no value in the deed much as without rejection love is moot.
If you disagree, than there is no common ground to discuss matters because Paul couldn't have made it any clearer.


I read it, but it doesn't answer anything. This verse says very simply thay God knew Jeremiah before he was concieved, set him apart appointed him as a prophet. This implies all kinds of foreknowlege. God knew that Jeremiah's parents would marry, have sex, conceive a specific child and that child would be a prophet. Thus God knows, at least in this case future actions that are not his own. Therefore the future is a reality that can be known, etc, etc.

Oh contrare Mr. Read-what-I-can-possibly-into-the-text. The passage states God knew Jeremiah before he was FORMED in the womb, not created and definately not before the foundation of the world. God conscecrated Jeremiah as a prophet before he was born, all that entails is that God has a desired plan for Jeremiah, no where does it state Jeremiah could NOT have rejected His appointment to be a prophet. In fact if Jeremiah had rejected God's call to be a prophet who would have recorded it? All you have is the words of a man who did heed God's call.


This doesn't address the verse in question. Like the Jeremiah passage this prophecy entails that certain people from cerain blodlines marry, copulate and have a child named Josiah, that child in turn is prohpesied to perform specific acts. All of this requires that God forknow these events in order to make this prophecy truthfully. I don't believe that his overrides free will, but that's because I don't hold to Libertarian free will (In which case it would override it).

Ok how much wisdom does it require for God to know that someone from David's lineage is going to have sex? Now consider, are the odds against God's favor? Next, we do not have the record surrounding Josiah's birth, just as God had told Zecariah to name his son John, what draws the conclusion God had not done likewise with Josiah? God said that Josiah would slay the false prophets on an alter. Did God name each individual prophet? This is a broad prophecy fulfilled by a child then man named Josiah who very well was under the influence and guidance of the Holy Ghost, for Scripture states Josiah's love for God and His commandments.

[Chappie]

yxboom:

Did God have to override Mary's freewill to name her son, Jesus or Zechariah's freewill to name his son, John?

NO!!!!!

[yxboom]

Today @ 02:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139641#post139641)
Chappie:

NO!!!!!

So why is that you conclude God had to know before the foundation of the world that there would be a king named Cyrus? I propose God brought this to pass as it happened.

[Chappie]

yxboom:
Are you suggesting spontaneity? How is this possible in the face of prophecy?

God at least had to know about it when he advanced the prophesy wouldn't you say....

Also, are you suggesting that Cyrus did not have free will?

Btw, I agree with you, but please do not allow that to hinder your answering my questions....

[yxboom]

Today @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139654#post139654)
Chappie:

yxboom:
Are you suggesting spontaneity?

No I am suggesting that God made a prediction, and when time was ripe brought it to pass.


How is this possible in the face of prophecy?

Above.


God at least had to know about it when he advanced the prophesy wouldn't you say....

Yes and No. Yes that He bound himself to bring a specific event to pass namely the return of the Jews under the reign of Cyrus, No in that the time of the prophecy it was not a conclusive event that He could not have changed at any time.


Also, are you suggesting that Cyrus did not have free will?

Cyrus has freewill. Cyrus was a willing vessel for God to guide in the way of fulfilling His prophecy.


Btw, I agree with you, but please do not allow that to hinder your answering my questions....

No problem.

[geebob]

trinitarian,


So is it possible on this view for God to know any of the the future actions of human free agents? Would the "some certainties" that can be projected ever be able to include certain actions of human persons? Why or why not?

I believe so, but not with ordinary libertarian freedom. I explain how this is so in this very thread in my post aimed at solly's remarks.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=139399#post139399



Chappie, one good answer, (which I could defend coming from the point of view articulated at the post linked to above). is that the freedom that cyrus had with regard to the events prophesied was not libertarian freedom.

[Chappie]

Today @ 12:05 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139691#post139691)
yxboom:
Yes and No. Yes that He bound himself to bring a specific event to pass namely the return of the Jews under the reign of Cyrus, No in that the time of the prophecy it was not a conclusive event that He could not have changed at any time.


Would that not have made his prophet out to be a liar?

[Chappie]

Today @ 12:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139710#post139710)
geebob:

Trinitarian,
I believe so, but not with ordinary libertarian freedom. I explain how this is so in this thread in my post aimed at solly's remarks.

http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=139399#post139399

Chappie, one good answer, (which I could defend coming from the point of view articulated at the post linked to above). Is that the freedom that Cyrus had with regard to the events prophesied was not libertarian freedom.

The thread that you referred me to tend to indicate that given enough time, infinite possibilities will eventually result in infinite certainty. Which means that sooner or later everything that has the possibility of happening will happen. Is this the tool that you suggest God is using?

[trueseeker]

Regarding Cyrus-- so God inspired his parents to name him Cyrus, so He influenced Cyrus to let the Israelites go. Just because God uses somebody to accomplish a certain task, doesn't mean He takes all their free will of how they will live their lives away from them.

Regarding Jesus-- of course He could have failed and sinned. The scritures clearly say that He was tempted. He could not have been tempted to sin, unless He could actually sin. When the scriptures say that He was tempted in all ways as we are, but He was without sin, it is because He accomplished something unbelievable. If He had no free will and could not sin, He accomplished nothing. Even under torture He uttered no threats, or reviling statements. This is the most amazing accomplishment in the history of the world, that Jesus lived a sinless life. And those would say He had no free will or choice to do otherwise are saying that He really accomplished nothing.

Jesus perservered and overcame the trials of the world, so that He was considered worthy to rule His Father's kingdom. If He could not have done otherwise, it was no trial, there was nothing to overcome. How are you perservering if you can't do anything else? Why would God consider Him more worthy than anyone else, if none of us can do anything different from what He predetermined we would do? If that is the case, we are all exactly the same, we all did exactly what He made us to do, why would there be any rewards or punishments? If we all worked perfectly like He designed us to, why is He going to keep some of us and destroy some of us?

[yxboom]

Today @ 04:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139712#post139712)
Chappie:

Would that not have made his prophet out to be a liar?

No it would not since similar events take place by the word of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and Jonah.

[Chappie]

As far as I know, the prophesy concerning Cyrus was the same event, it either happened in harmony with all the prophesy concerning it by all the prophets, or it happened in harmony with none...

There was no alternate prophecy to cover it if god changed his mind concerning the first.

Perhaps you could give me more detail as to what you have concluded....

[geebob]

The thread that you referred me to tend to indicate that given enough time, infinite possibilities will eventually result in infinite certainty. Which means that sooner or later everything that has the possibility of happening will happen. Is this the tool that you suggest God is using?

err., it did? :huh:

That was this thread and it was my post. You are probably thinking of the comment on statistical necessity. It doesn't quite work that way. There may be a fact of the matter about how many smokers will die in the state of ohio this year, but that doesn't mean that it is determined which individuals will die. Also, take note of the example from quantum mechanics.

statistics is not as wishy washy as you implied.

Also, with regard to your specific contention on cyrus, if you read further in my post, you'll see that I do in fact believe in compatibilistic freedom and I believe that the prophecies about cyrus may be possibly settled because God may have determined that those choices would not be libertarian free.

[Chappie]

Today @ 01:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139735#post139735)
geebob:



err., it did? :huh:

That was this thread and it was my post. You are probably thinking of the comment on statistical necessity. It doesn't quite work that way. There may be a fact of the matter about how many smokers will die in the state of ohio this year, but that doesn't mean that it is determined which individuals will die. Also, take note of the example from quantum mechanics.

statistics is not as wishy washy as you implied.

Also, with regard to your specific contention on cyrus, if you read further in my post, you'll see that I do in fact believe in compatibilistic freedom and I believe that the prophecies about cyrus may be possibly settled because God may have determined that those choices would not be libertarian free.

I have no expertise in wishie washie, although i whishi did. :teeth:

I have a little bit of a different take on God's foreknowledge than most. It is not so much based on "A" scripture; as it is based on a preponderance of scripture. It leans more on the fact that God exist outside of time. It makes as much sense to me as most suggestions placed before me. I just wanted to pick your brain...

[Xmansmommy]

Great thread! :thumb: Thanks to all participating. :smile:

[geebob]

I have no expertise in wishie washie, although i whishi did.
:lol:


I have a little bit of a different take on God's foreknowledge than most.

actually, it's quite common amongst free will theists. I don't think it's consistent with libertarian free will though.

[Chappie]

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140023#post140023)
geebob:
Actually, it's quite common amongst free will theists. I don't think it's consistent with libertarian free will though.

Perhaps we can discuss that a bit. I'll be the dumb one asking all the questions..... :shrug:

Please explain for me your understanding of foreknowledge as it relates to free will theists, contrasted by your understanding of the precise position of libertarian free willists.

[geebob]

a free will theist is a libertarian free will theist actually. A theologian who holds to a view of freedom that is not libertarian freedom is generally not considered a free will theist. What I meant was that the claim that God is timeless, If it is a claim that attempts explain how God has exhaustive definite foreknowledge (foreknowledge of all things even in the futer as settled, henceforth abbreviated as edf), is still not entirely consistent with the notion of free will.

To explain my position, I'll start out with a definition of libertarian free will. It is from a neutral source by the way, from Alvin Plantinga who who believes that God has edf. As a matter of fact, I cut out the part where he says that this doesn't necessarily indicate that God doesn't have edf, which is justifiable in light of the fact that he is in the middle of defining the concept and he is explaining lfw and he does not defend the claim of the compatibility of lfw and edf but he is merely mentioning that that is his position.

If a person is free with respect to a given action, then he is free to perform the action and free to refrain from performing it; no antecedent conditions and/or causal laws determine that he will perform the action, or that he won't...It is within his power, at the time in question, to take or perform the action and within his power to refrain from it.
(Taken from Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings by Peterson et al. pg. 267)

There are two basic parts here (and the last part is further explanation of the first). The first says that it is possible for a person to act and for him to refrain. The second says that both possibilities are logically consistent with the past. nothing in the past determines how one will choose.

There are two reasons why timelessness as espoused by most christian laymen and popular scholars will not help with the conflict of foreknowledge and laymen.

So the conflict of foreknowledge comes when God knows in the past what you will do in the future. That is not logically consistent with both acting and refraining from that action because God's knowledge cannot fail to come to pass and what he knows you will do cannot happen otherwise or it wouldn't be true that God knew what you were going to do. Even if God's knowledge is based on the fact that the future is present to him, it would still be true in the past that God knows what you will do in the future and the problem doesn't go away.

Secondly, although a statement about independence from the past is common fair for free will as it is explicitely stated, I take the first part of the definition, and Plantinga's subsequent explanation at the end not only to require that the past is logically consistent, but rather it must also be logically consistent with the future. So if the future that we are progressing into is set and in that future, you will act, that future is not logically consistent with your refraining and if it is not logically consistent with your refraining, then it is not within your power to do so. This is why I insist upon presentism where the future does not exist as settled nor is the truth about it settled but rather the future exists in a mode that is ontologically inferior to the past and can have uncertainties as part of the truth concerning it.

Now, so much for what most people believe about God's timelessness. There is a view of timelessness espoused by scholars that may not have these problems. Basically, God's timelessness is such that he doesn't know today what you will do tomorrow. God doesn't even exist today becuase God really is outside of time and he is way outside without so much as a foot in the temporal door. God knows what you will do tomorrow, but he knows this timelessly. The open theist William Hasker actually defends the coherence of this position as a solution to the problem of foreknowledge and free will. He's still an open theist though because he doesn't believe God is timeless in this sense.

Does it really work? I'm more skeptical than Hasker. I'm inclined to think that if there is a specific way the future is somewhere in existence, then that is not logically consistent with our freedom.

But Hasker agrees with Nicolaus Wolterstorff to the effect that this is not the God presented to us in scripture. A God in this sense cannot redeem anyone for example. So if you accepted Christ today, do you think that God has forgiven your sins today? That would imply something about God's internal attitude about you in time and the fact is, God cannot forgive you today. The effects of his actions may be in time, that much is coherent with timelessness, but time cannot effect God without infecting him with temporality because for time to effect God, there'd be a point where God was not effected (where he's angry with you), a point where he is effected(where he's forgiving you) and a point after he had been effected (where he has forgiven you). This is precisely what it means to be temporal.

And this is not what the biblical narrative portrays about God. It shows God very much active in time. Consider the implications that Nicolaus Wolterstorff draws out of the following biblical narrative:

exodus 4
1 Moses answered, "What if they do not believe me or listen to me and say, 'The LORD did not appear to you'?"
2 Then the LORD said to him, "What is that in your hand?"
"A staff," he replied.
3 The LORD said, "Throw it on the ground."
Moses threw it on the ground and it became a snake, and he ran from it. 4 Then the LORD said to him, "Reach out your hand and take it by the tail." So Moses reached out and took hold of the snake and it turned back into a staff in his hand. 5 "This," said the LORD , "is so that they may believe that the LORD , the God of their fathers-the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob-has appeared to you."
6 Then the LORD said, "Put your hand inside your cloak." So Moses put his hand into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was leprous, [1] like snow.
7 "Now put it back into your cloak," he said. So Moses put his hand back into his cloak, and when he took it out, it was restored, like the rest of his flesh.
8 Then the LORD said, "If they do not believe you or pay attention to the first miraculous sign, they may believe the second. 9 But if they do not believe these two signs or listen to you, take some water from the Nile and pour it on the dry ground. The water you take from the river will become blood on the ground."
10 Moses said to the LORD , "O Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue."
11 The LORD said to him, "Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ? 12 Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say."
13 But Moses said, "O Lord, please send someone else to do it."
14 Then the LORD's anger burned against Moses and he said, "What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and his heart will be glad when he sees you. 15 You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. 16 He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. 17 But take this staff in your hand so you can perform miraculous signs with it."

Wolterstorff has the following comment

This episode stands out as one of the great numinous episodes of the biblical narrative. But it's representation of God as having a history, which can be narrated is not exceptional but typical of Scripture's representation of God: God responds to what transpires in human affairs by performing a succession of actions, including actions of speaking. An implication of this representation of God is that there's change in God's life; if a person does one thing at one time and different thing at another time, then there's change in that person's life. Behind the change in action, there is, in turn, a change in knowledge: God's successive responses to Moses were motivated by God's knowledge, each time, of Moses' new protest; the changes in God's knowledge tracked the changes in Moses' protest. These, I say, are implications of how scripture represents God: God has a history, and in this history there are changes in God's actions, responses, and knowledge. These I say are implications of how scripture represents God: God has a history, and in this history there are changes in God's actions, responses, and knowledge. The God of scripture is One of whom a narrative can be told; we know that not because scripture tells us that but because it offers such a narrative. I hold that an implication of this is that God is in time. If something has a history, then perforce that being is in time.

(taken from God and Time: four views, pg 188)

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139710#post139710)
geebob:


I believe so, but not with ordinary libertarian freedom. I explain how this is so in this very thread in my post aimed at solly's remarks.



That's very similar to how I felt about the issues in question until I began to consider the proposition that we all tip our hat to, namely that God knows everything that can be known. Thus if the decisions of future free agents can be known, then God has to know all of them, if he indeed knows all knowable things. I don't see a way around this.

[Trinitarian]

Yesterday @ 10:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=139640#post139640)
yxboom:



You don't need to analyze the passage to get it. Christ humbled Himself (agreed?) and became obedient even to a death on a cross (agreed?).
If you agree than I ask, how is it conceivable that Christ humbled Himself? If there is one option that He be humble then how did he humble Himself, that would be like digging a 10 foot hole with only 9 feet of dirt. Additionally, how did Christ BECOME obedient if there was but one option that He BE obedient? Without an alternative there is no value in the deed much as without rejection love is moot.
If you disagree, than there is no common ground to discuss matters because Paul couldn't have made it any clearer.



This only holds if you hold to libertarian freedom, which I don't. What Christ could or could not have done is not the point (nor is it Paul's point) the point is what he did do. On this logic God's goddness has no value unless he also has the option of being evil.

You may find it infinitely clear, but that's just because you have a theological ax to grind on this text. What Paul made clear is what Christ did, not what he could or could not do. I submit that Christ could not have disobeyed the Father, because that would have obliterated the unity of the Triune God, causing God to cease to exist. I find that very problematic.



Oh contrare Mr. Read-what-I-can-possibly-into-the-text. The passage states God knew Jeremiah before he was FORMED in the womb, not created and definately not before the foundation of the world. God conscecrated Jeremiah as a prophet before he was born, all that entails is that God has a desired plan for Jeremiah, no where does it state Jeremiah could NOT have rejected His appointment to be a prophet. In fact if Jeremiah had rejected God's call to be a prophet who would have recorded it? All you have is the words of a man who did heed God's call.


My, my resorting to ad hominem argumentation, now are we? I suggest that you read the text again. God specifically says that he knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. This speaks of God's knowledge of Jeremiah before his conception. Sorry your spin doesn't hold water here.



Ok how much wisdom does it require for God to know that someone from David's lineage is going to have sex? Now consider, are the odds against God's favor? Next, we do not have the record surrounding Josiah's birth, just as God had told Zecariah to name his son John, what draws the conclusion God had not done likewise with Josiah? God said that Josiah would slay the false prophets on an alter. Did God name each individual prophet? This is a broad prophecy fulfilled by a child then man named Josiah who very well was under the influence and guidance of the Holy Ghost, for Scripture states Josiah's love for God and His commandments.

Sorry, this prophecy is not as broad as you would like it to be. What chances are there that these people from David's line who have sex will have a boy and happen to name him Josiah? This prophecy is very specific. How can God be sure that the altar in question will still exist, or that there will be false prophets at all during that time? At best all you have is a God that is a gambler (maybe a good gambler, but a gambler nonetheless), and that's not the biblical picture of God.

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

This only holds if you hold to libertarian freedom, which I don't. What Christ could or could not have done is not the point (nor is it Paul's point) the point is what he did do. On this logic God's goddness has no value unless he also has the option of being evil.

and.....


You may find it infinitely clear, but that's just because you have a theological ax to grind on this text. What Paul made clear is what Christ did, not what he could or could not do. I submit that Christ could not have disobeyed the Father, because that would have obliterated the unity of the Triune God, causing God to cease to exist. I find that very problematic.

You seem to fail to see the aspect of being able to and not doing anyway. God can gut you like a fish while you read this but doesn't nor would He, so what is the problem? Having the option available causes His omnipotence to fail because He will not exercise it?


My, my resorting to ad hominem argumentation, now are we?

Well it would be an ad hominem had I offered you no response at all, but I did so it was a :poke: Calm down.


I suggest that you read the text again. God specifically says that he knew Jeremiah before he was formed in the womb. This speaks of God's knowledge of Jeremiah before his conception. Sorry your spin doesn't hold water here.

God said He knew Jeremiah as he was CREATED or FORMED in the womb? Being formed is not pre-conception sorry.


Sorry, this prophecy is not as broad as you would like it to be. What chances are there that these people from David's line who have sex will have a boy and happen to name him Josiah? This prophecy is very specific.

The odds God is working with is NOT who would name their child Josiah but who will give birth to a SON! After the relevant fact that this couple will have a son, God is WELL capable of having this child named Josiah. Again, let me bring forward Isaac, John the Baptiser, Jesus all examples of God naming a child for the parents.


How can God be sure that the altar in question will still exist, or that there will be false prophets at all during that time?

Had the alter ceased to exist God would have no reason to bring that prophecy to pass now would He? That is a question begging point you make. Had Israel repented you might as well thrown in all the prophecies of judgment God had proclamied against them in the pot and you will see numerous unfulfilled prophecies. Just 1 altar is hardly to be missed.


At best all you have is a God that is a gambler (maybe a good gambler, but a gambler nonetheless), and that's not the biblical picture of God.

God takes risks, sure but gambling is a cute loaded term. When God created Adam and Eve and put that tree in the midst of the garden and putting a death stipulation on that tree wasn't a risk? You have God in a bad place.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 08:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140185#post140185)
yxboom:
You seem to fail to see the aspect of being able to and not doing anyway. God can gut you like a fish while you read this but doesn't nor would He, so what is the problem? Having the option available causes His omnipotence to fail because He will not exercise it?


You don't seem to be able to think outside of the context of Libertarian free will. There are certain things that Scripture says God cannot do. He cannot be tempted by evil (Jas. 1:13) and cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). I would also submit that God cannot sin, as such he would cease to be God. Thus Christ could not have disobeyed the Father, as He would have ceased to be God. So either Christ (and All the other members of the Trinity) don't have free will, or maybe Libertarian freedom is not the biblical model.


God said He knew Jeremiah as he was CREATED or FORMED in the womb? Being formed is not pre-conception sorry.

Nope, God says he knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was formed in the womb, not as he was formed in the womb. This is pre-conception. You should have done your homework. No Gold Star for you! :lol:


Had the alter ceased to exist God would have no reason to bring that prophecy to pass now would He? That is a question begging point you make. Had Israel repented you might as well thrown in all the prophecies of judgment God had proclamied against them in the pot and you will see numerous unfulfilled prophecies. Just 1 altar is hardly to be missed.

Then you believe that God's statements can be rendered false, making God either a liar, or in error. That is untenable, biblically.


God takes risks, sure but gambling is a cute loaded term. When God created Adam and Eve and put that tree in the midst of the garden and putting a death stipulation on that tree wasn't a risk? You have God in a bad place.

How could it be a risk, even for the gambler-God of Open Theism? You've said over and over how resourceful and wise God is, so there is no risk, on either view God should be able to acomplish what he desires, right? Or maybe he isn't as wise or resourceful either? This is all highly problematic.

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

You don't seem to be able to think outside of the context of Libertarian free will. There are certain things that Scripture says God cannot do. He cannot be tempted by evil (Jas. 1:13) and cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). I would also submit that God cannot sin, as such he would cease to be God. Thus Christ could not have disobeyed the Father, as He would have ceased to be God. So either Christ (and All the other members of the Trinity) don't have free will, or maybe Libertarian freedom is not the biblical model.
I have no problems with the limitations that God has upon Himself. However you are equating a defined statement such as Tit 1:2 that God can not lie with Phil. 2:8 that Jesus HUMBLED Himself and saying Jesus could not have done otherwise based on the fact that God can not lie. Its incoherent.


Nope, God says he knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was formed in the womb, not as he was formed in the womb. This is pre-conception. You should have done your homework. No Gold Star for you! :lol:

And how does that prove your point? Being formed vs. created vs. at before the foundation of the world still exists. Forgive me if I had given you too much credit to notice that. Unless you deny God could ONLY know Jeremiah pre-eternal rather than in a realistic flow of events.


Then you believe that God's statements can be rendered false, making God either a liar, or in error. That is untenable, biblically.

I submit that if you are correct then God was a liar cause Hezekiah didn't die. Hezekiah and Isaiah disagree with you.

2 Kings 20:1 In those days Hezekiah became sick and was at the point of death. And Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz came to him and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, 'Set your house in order, for you shall die; you shall not recover.'"

To be a liar is to know something is fact yet saying contrary to what one already knows as fact. Now analyzing your view of God, God in eternity past knew Hezekiah would not die (that is fact) yet declared through Isaiah that Hezekiah would die (saying contrary to what He knew as fact).
My view of God is that when that proclamation was made, Hezekiah was going to die. Hezekiah repented and God extended his life so that he did not die, so when the contrary was accomplished it was the alternative to 2 possiblities. Hezekiah did not die.
Whose view of God is the liar?


How could it be a risk, even for the gambler-God of Open Theism? You've said over and over how resourceful and wise God is, so there is no risk, on either view God should be able to acomplish what he desires, right? Or maybe he isn't as wise or resourceful either? This is all highly problematic.

God is and God will. Only a determinist has this as problematic.
1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

LFW acknowledges the contrary will of man and evil that is against God. Removing freewill you have to face the fact that Paul said God will not let you be tempted beyond what you are able yet God is the author of the temptation to overcome, with no way of escape. Again, which view of God is the liar?

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140228#post140228)
yxboom:

I have no problems with the limitations that God has upon Himself. However you are equating a defined statement such as Tit 1:2 that God can not lie with Phil. 2:8 that Jesus HUMBLED Himself and saying Jesus could not have done otherwise based on the fact that God can not lie. Its incoherent.


I'm contesting the idea that an action is meaningless unless something else could have occured. Phil. 2:8 says that Christ humbled himself. It does not say what you keep tryign to make it say, that Christ could have not humbled himself. You say that an action only has meaning if there is an alternative action that could have been taken. On this logic, God's truth is meaningless because he cannot lie. Is that what you believe?



And how does that prove your point? Being formed vs. created vs. at before the foundation of the world still exists. Forgive me if I had given you too much credit to notice that. Unless you deny God could ONLY know Jeremiah pre-eternal rather than in a realistic flow of events.

My point is that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in womb. That is what the text says. Therefore I believe it. This is foreknowledge, you've said nothing of substance to refute that.


My view of God is that when that proclamation was made, Hezekiah was going to die. Hezekiah repented and God extended his life so that he did not die, so when the contrary was accomplished it was the alternative to 2 possiblities. Hezekiah did not die.

None of this requires that God did not have foreknowledge about what possiblity would be actualized. Certainly I agree that God meets us and answers our prayers and is affected by us, but this does not require that he did not have cognative knowledge of this beforehand.


God is and God will. Only a determinist has this as problematic.

I wouldn't consider myself a hard determinist, but regardless, I don't know how you can say that this is a problem for determinists. On the determinist view God certainly will acomplish his purposes. This is no problem whatsoever.



1 Corinthians 10:13 No temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation he will also provide the way of escape, that you may be able to endure it.

LFW acknowledges the contrary will of man and evil that is against God. Removing freewill you have to face the fact that Paul said God will not let you be tempted beyond what you are able yet God is the author of the temptation to overcome, with no way of escape. Again, which view of God is the liar?

This is off the topic. Temptation is an entirely different issue that the one at hand here. This is a discussion about foreknowlege. Moreover, you don't seem to understand what determinists believe. Determinists don't believe that God is the author of temption. Only extreme fatalists would hold that God actively causes everything. Most determinists hold to secondary causes. Determinism is not the view that God actively causes everything, that is Fatalism. I recommend John Fineberg's No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God for a good case for compatiblism and a charitable engagement with Open Theism. I don't offer a blancket endorsement of this book, but it is a good work.

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

I'm contesting the idea that an action is meaningless unless something else could have occured. Phil. 2:8 says that Christ humbled himself. It does not say what you keep tryign to make it say, that Christ could have not humbled himself. You say that an action only has meaning if there is an alternative action that could have been taken. On this logic, God's truth is meaningless because he cannot lie. Is that what you believe?

God's truth is meaningful because HE DOES NOT lie.


My point is that God knew Jeremiah before he was formed in womb. That is what the text says. Therefore I believe it. This is foreknowledge, you've said nothing of substance to refute that.

Because I don't desire to get into a long expedition with you on Jeremiah's predestination. You may start another thread and I am sure there will be many willing participants.


None of this requires that God did not have foreknowledge about what possiblity would be actualized. Certainly I agree that God meets us and answers our prayers and is affected by us, but this does not require that he did not have cognative knowledge of this beforehand.

You are getting confusing now. God meets us and is affected by us? Then are you going to affirm both that God experiences time(otherwise how is He meeting us) and God suffers and changes (which is God being affected by us)? I thought determinism be it soft or hard is to sustain God's immutability and impassibility. What is it?


I wouldn't consider myself a hard determinist, but regardless, I don't know how you can say that this is a problem for determinists. On the determinist view God certainly will acomplish his purposes. This is no problem whatsoever.

It is a problem in that God said creation was good, yet determined Adam would fall, and that He would suffer and that He would later repent for making mankind and wiping them all out in a flood, yet say it was man's fault.


This is off the topic. Temptation is an entirely different issue that the one at hand here. This is a discussion about foreknowlege.

This is a topic of foreknowledge but you made the statement of God taking gambles. It seems you started a rabbit trail and am trying to leave me in the wilderness.


Moreover, you don't seem to understand what determinists believe. Determinists don't believe that God is the author of temption.

I'm saying you have a problem with 1 Cor. 10:13 in that God says He will provide a way of escape but soft or hard determinism, God has removed all the possibilities for way of escape because it is His determination that the person would sin. Soft determinism isn't a sufficient scape goat cause it still rests that God removed those possibilities to bring about His desire.


Only extreme fatalists would hold that God actively causes everything. Most determinists hold to secondary causes.

Right and God removes the way of escape that He promised He would give to bring about His deterministic desire. Still you have a problem with 1 Cor. 10:13.


Determinism is not the view that God actively causes everything, that is Fatalism. I recommend John Fineberg's No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God for a good case for compatiblism and a charitable engagement with Open Theism. I don't offer a blancket endorsement of this book, but it is a good work.

I never stated God causes everything but He only leaves one possible outcome either way you paint it, hard or soft.

[Chappie]

Geebob:
You did a great job of explaining yourself; still it left me just as confused as ever. So I decided to do a little extracurricular research.


Websters Dictionary.
Libertarian
Pronunciation: "li-b&r-'ter-E-&n
Function: noun
Date: 1789
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will.
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
- libertarian adjective
- lib·er·tar·i·an·ism /-E-&-"ni-z&m/ noun

In harmony with the context of what is spoken, according to 1, and 2a; we must choose how to best apply this definition in harmony with the context of what we are talking about. Therefore I contend that while “1” can be applied unrestrictedly; 2a must be applied with a grain of salt. We know that the biblical doctrine of freewill is not absolute nor is it unrestricted.

Therefore I contend that in harmony with scripture, the term libertarian freewillist can only be applied in a scriptural manner to mean, “an advocate of freewill. The scriptures must determine the extent that the doctrine allows us to take it if we choose to use the word at all.

So, a libertarian freewillist can only be one that advocates the biblical doctrine of freewill. So, now we need to look up the definition of the word "freewill".



Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
[u]2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. [u]
3 : Freely given or done. (2a) Or holding to the doctrine of freewill.
[u]4 : Freedom of decision or of choice between alternatives. (4a) Freedom of the will to choose a course of action without external coercion but in accordance with the ideals or moral outlook of the individual.[u]

1) A voluntary choice. 2) Freedom to make choices absent prior cause or divine intervention. Next I would like to emphasize #4) Freedom of choice between alternatives. Meaning that for a man to choose to fly is not an alternative that is available to him. This does hinder absolute freewill; still it in no way encumbers the biblical doctrine of freewill.


VOLUNTARY choice or decision. (1) What is meant by voluntary?
Main Entry: 1vol·un·tary
Pronunciation: 'vä-l&n-"ter-E
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin voluntarius, from voluntas will, from velle to will, wish -- more at WILL
Date: 14th century
1 : proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
2 : unconstrained by interference : SELF-DETERMINING
3 : done by design or intention : INTENTIONAL <voluntary manslaughter>
4 : of, relating to, subject to, or regulated by the will <voluntary behavior>
5 : having power of free choice
6 : provided or supported by voluntary action <a voluntary organization>
7 : acting or done of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligation
- vol·un·tar·i·ly adverb
- vol·un·tar·i·ness noun
synonyms VOLUNTARY, INTENTIONAL, DELIBERATE, WILLING mean done or brought about of one's own will. VOLUNTARY implies freedom and spontaneity of choice or action without external compulsion <a voluntary confession>. INTENTIONAL stresses an awareness of an end to be achieved <the intentional concealment of vital information>. DELIBERATE implies full consciousness of the nature of one's act and its consequences <deliberate acts of sabotage>. WILLING implies a readiness and eagerness to accede to or anticipate the wishes of another <willing obedience>.

Geebob, one of the reasons that we do not understand each other is that we are not even speaking the same language. Where does the phrase libertarian freewill come from? Who decided that this term reasonably identifies anyone in harmony with what they believe. At best, I suggest that the term “libertarian freewillist” can only be applied to suggest one that believes in the doctrine of freewill. If we want to know what that doctrine is, we have to turn to scripture.

Tags and labels often have baggage that does not belong to the one carrying the load. This is why, you may call me anything you choose, but I will only answer if you say, “Hey, Christian”….

Bottom line, we are only free to choose between the options that our creator has placed before us. It does not mean that we are free to create additional options. We choose between. We do not create options…..

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 09:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140254#post140254)
yxboom:



God's truth is meaningful because HE DOES NOT lie.



And yet Titus 1:2 tells us that he cannot lie. Thus, how can it be meaningful since there is only one possible outcome?



Because I don't desire to get into a long expedition with you on Jeremiah's predestination. You may start another thread and I am sure there will be many willing participants.


Sounds good to me.



You are getting confusing now. God meets us and is affected by us? Then are you going to affirm both that God experiences time(otherwise how is He meeting us) and God suffers and changes (which is God being affected by us)? I thought determinism be it soft or hard is to sustain God's immutability and impassibility. What is it?

Not all who reject Open Theism affirm Classical Reformed Socholastic Theism either. I hold to a Relational Trinitarian Theism. I do believe that God suffers, changes his mind and is genuinely affected by us. But I don't think this requires us to surreder God's foreknowlege and other such attributes. To go into the nuances of my Trinitarian Theology would take us far off the topic. If you wish to discuss my own views of the Doctrine of God, then feel free to start a thread on the topic.




It is a problem in that God said creation was good, yet determined Adam would fall, and that He would suffer and that He would later repent for making mankind and wiping them all out in a flood, yet say it was man's fault.

God's declaration of the Goodness of creation is not a problem in that the creation was made to be perfected through the Son and Spirit. The Fall does not destroy this. God brings his creation to perfection thru the Son and Spirit eschatologically. Thus the Goodness of Creation is not a problem for my view.




This is a topic of foreknowledge but you made the statement of God taking gambles. It seems you started a rabbit trail and am trying to leave me in the wilderness.

Ok, we can leave the rabbit trail, then. :cheers:


I'm saying you have a problem with 1 Cor. 10:13 in that God says He will provide a way of escape but soft or hard determinism, God has removed all the possibilities for way of escape because it is His determination that the person would sin. Soft determinism isn't a sufficient scape goat cause it still rests that God removed those possibilities to bring about His desire.

Right and God removes the way of escape that He promised He would give to bring about His deterministic desire. Still you have a problem with 1 Cor. 10:13.

I never stated God causes everything but He only leaves one possible outcome either way you paint it, hard or soft.

I still don't think that this is a problem. Soft determinism does not require that God has removed ways out of temptation, garunteeing the outcome. Determinism does not necesarily hold that God determines everything. God may have given us a way out, and yet our own desires being what they are have rejected that exit and therefore we sin. On a compatibilistic understanding of free will, this is unproblematic.

However, I will admit that 1 Cor. 10:13 is food for thought. I hadn't recently thought about how this verse relates to this particualr debate. Thanks for bringing it up. I will think on it further.

[Trinitarian]

One other thing I would like to say about the Open Theism debate. I'm quite annoyed by the militant evangelicals that condemn Open Theism as heresy, and the rejection of classical Christianity.

I disagree with many points of Open Theism, but no Christian creed has ever said "We believe in One God, the Father who has exhaustive definite foreknowlege." So while I disagree, I fully see it as within the bounds of Orthodoxy and consider the debate an inner-eccleisal dialogue, not the formation of cult as some are prone to think.

[geebob]

Thus if the decisions of future free agents can be known, then God has to know all of them, if he indeed knows all knowable things.

tsk tsk. You didn't read the post I linked you to. The issue with foreknowledge is only with libertarian freedom. I don't believe that all free actions are libertarian free actions. I explain this very thoroughly in that post. Not that I explain the incompatibility of foreknowledge and libertarian freedom. I do however go into depth on that one in my post I made prior to this post.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 10:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140272#post140272)
geebob:



tsk tsk. You didn't read the post I linked you to. The issue with foreknowledge is only with libertarian freedom. I don't believe that all free actions are libertarian free actions. I explain this very thoroughly in that post. Not that I explain the incompatibility of foreknowledge and libertarian freedom. I do however go into depth on that one in my post I made prior to this post.

No, I read it. I didn't see you address the main point that I've been making. Namely, if the decisions of future free agents are things that can be known, God must necessarily know all of them, since the Scirptures say that God knows everything (1 Jn. 3:20)

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

And yet Titus 1:2 tells us that he cannot lie. Thus, how can it be meaningful since there is only one possible outcome?

This is going to go in circles.


Sounds good to me.

ok.


Not all how reject Open Theism affirm Classical Reformed Socholastic Theism either. I hold to a Relational Trinitarian Theism. I do believe that God suffers, changes his mind and is genuinely affected by us. But I don't think this requires us to surreder God's foreknowlege and other such attributes. To go into the nuances of my Trinitarian Theology would take us far off the topic. If you wish to discuss my own views of the Doctrine of God, then feel free to start a thread on the topic.

That seriously sounds like a case of I want my cake and eat it to but I conceed that a new thread is in order to dive into the doctrinal implications.


God's declaration of the Goodness of creation is not a problem in that the creation was made to be perfected through the Son and Spirit. The Fall does not destroy this. God brings his creation to perfection thru the Son and Spirit eschatologically. Thus the Goodness of Creation is not a problem for my view.

umm....ok.


I still don't think that this is a problem. Soft determinism does not require that God has removed ways out of temptation, garunteeing the outcome.

Than you have LFW.


Determinism does not necesarily hold that God determines everything. God may have given us a way out, and yet our own desires being what they are have rejected that exit and therefore we sin. On a compatibilistic understanding of free will, this is unproblematic.

But that is obfuscating in that God's intention or "determistic will" so to speak is that the person would sin. Allowing the person to do it or not is not the issue as it is that God first determined they would do it and in so doing it would neccessarily follow that God does NOT provide the way of escape because had He done so He risks having His will being thwarted and I already know how you feel about God taking risks :wink:.


However, I will admit that 1 Cor. 10:13 is food for thought. I hadn't recently thought about how this verse relates to this particualr debate. Thanks for bringing it up. I will think on it further.

Ok kewl.

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

One other thing I would like to say about the Open Theism debate. I'm quite annoyed by the militant evangelicals that condemn Open Theism as heresy, and the rejection of classical Christianity.

I disagree with many points of Open Theism, but no Christian creed has ever said "We believe in One God, the Father who has exhaustive definite foreknowlege." So while I disagree, I fully see it as within the bounds of Orthodoxy and consider the debate an inner-eccleisal dialogue, not the formation of cult as some are prone to think.
Thank you and I will keep in mind your OVT sympathies in further discourse with you.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140286#post140286)
yxboom:

This is going to go in circles.



Well, I'm still gonna beleive that God cannot lie, if that's what you mean. :bv:



That seriously sounds like a case of I want my cake and eat it to but I conceed that a new thread is in order to dive into the doctrinal implications.


I don't think so. Maybe we'll find out.



Than you have LFW.


No I don't.



But that is obfuscating in that God's intention or determistic will; so to speak is that the person would sin. Allowing the person to do it or not is not the issue as it is that God first determined they would do it and in so doing it would neccessarily follow that God does NOT provide the way of escape because had He done so He risks having His will being thwarted and I already know how you feel about God taking risks :wink:.

I would just call attention again to the fact that determinism, doesn't make God the active determiner of everything that occurs. So I still don't see a problem here.


Ok kewl.

:cool:

[trueseeker]

One of the main problems with Calvin's view of foreknowledge, that those of us who don't believe in it see is simple.

If God foreknew how everything would turn out when He created the world, then He created it to turn out the way He foreknew it would.

So when the scriptures say, He wants all men to be saved, it can't be true, because He created the world knowing that most men wouldn't be saved. From the moment He created it the way He did, everyone's fate was sealed.

God created the world the way He wanted to
plus
God foreknew that most men wouldn't be saved
equals
God does not want most men to be saved

If God foreknows everything and He wants everyone to be saved, He would have made the world differently so that the outcome would be that everyone gets saved.

That is why the fact that God wants everyone to be saved, doesn't work in the absolute foreknowledge system. If you subtract the absolute foreknowledge, the equation can work.

God created us with free will and wants everyone to be saved
plus
He is calling us and offering a free gift of grace
equals
Not everyone will accept Him and His gift

This lays the personal responsibility squarely on those who reject Him. Where as predestination lays all of the personal responsibility squarely on God, He created everyone foreknowing that the way the created most people meant that they would be damned to destruction.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 10:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140288#post140288)
yxboom:


Thank you and I will keep in mind your OVT sympathies in further discourse with you.

I'm just glad that I'm able to have charitable discussions with Open Theists here. There aren't many...well ok ANY boards that I've found that foster good, irenic theological discussion and debate like TWeb.

[Chappie]

I also might add that determinism is unscriptural because it relieves man of any responsibility for his actions.....

Think about it, a past sequence of events does not necesarily produce a single outcome. Just as effectively they can produce options that are subject to choice....

There, so we have eliminated libertarian freewill, and determinism is out the door also...

So, were does this leave us...:shrug:

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

Well, I'm still gonna beleive that God cannot lie, if that's what you mean. :bv:

[placeholder for a sigh smiley]


No I don't.

How can it not neccessarily follow?


I would just call attention again to the fact that determinism, doesn't make God the active determiner of everything that occurs. So I still don't see a problem here.

Seriously, is there anything outside of God's will that He just allows to take place? For instance a needless act of violence like a 7 year old girl being raped, would that be outside of God's control (deterministic will)?

[yxboom]

trueseeker:

One of the main problems with Calvin's view of foreknowledge, that those of us who don't believe in it see is simple.

If God foreknew how everything would turn out when He created the world, then He created it to turn out the way He foreknew it would.

So when the scriptures say, He wants all men to be saved, it can't be true, because He created the world knowing that most men wouldn't be saved. From the moment He created it the way He did, everyone's fate was sealed.

God created the world the way He wanted to
plus
God foreknew that most men wouldn't be saved
equals
God does not want most men to be saved

If God foreknows everything and He wants everyone to be saved, He would have made the world differently so that the outcome would be that everyone gets saved.

That is why the fact that God wants everyone to be saved, doesn't work in the absolute foreknowledge system. If you subtract the absolute foreknowledge, the equation can work.

God created us with free will and wants everyone to be saved
plus
He is calling us and offering a free gift of grace
equals
Not everyone will accept Him and His gift

This lays the personal responsibility squarely on those who reject Him. Where as predestination lays all of the personal responsibility squarely on God, He created everyone foreknowing that the way the created most people meant that they would be damned to destruction.

I am really digging your posts in this thread. Have a few Pearls, my treat :teeth:

[yxboom]

Today @ 02:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140298#post140298)
Trinitarian:



I'm just glad that I'm able to have charitable discussions with Open Theists here. There aren't many...well ok ANY boards that I've found that foster good, irenic theological discussion and debate like TWeb.

:thumb:

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 11:00 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140316#post140316)
yxboom:

Seriously, is there anything outside of God's will that He just allows to take place? For instance a needless act of violence like a 7 year old girl being raped, would that be outside of God's control (deterministic will)?

I admit that this is a hard thing to answer. I don't think that anything is outside of God's providential control, but I also think that God provides space for the world to be the world, and in so doing he allows things to happen that he does not desire.

But I think that this is a problem for any theist. Even for the Open Theist, God could have prevented that from occurring through miraculous intervention. On any model of theism there are difficulties and this is one that they all share.

I think the only answer to this problem and the problem of suffering in general is not the abstract metaphysical answer that either classical theism or Open theism offers. The only answer that I can give is the mystical answer that, God in Christ enters into our suffering and feels our pain and cries with us long after our tears are gone. And by his entering into our suffering and triumphing over evil, God rescues us and animates our lives with meaning through the Spirt giving us joy in the face of suffering.

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

I admit that this is a hard thing to answer. I don't think that anything is outside of God's providential control, but I also think that God provides space for the world to be the world, and in so doing he allows things to happen that he does not desire.

But I think that this is a problem for any theist. Even for the Open Theist, God could have prevented that from occurring through miraculous intervention. On any model of theism there are difficulties and this is one that they all share.

I think the only answer to this problem and the problem of suffering in general is not the abstract metaphysical answer that either classical theism or Open theism offers. The only answer that I can give is the mystical answer that, God in Christ enters into our suffering and feels our pain and cries with us long after our tears are gone. And by his entering into our suffering and triumphing over evil, God rescues us and animates our lives with meaning through the Spirt giving us joy in the face of suffering.

Where this question I feel is much more reconcilable in the Open model is that God allows needless suffering as a fact of sin and reality (that dreaded acronym: LFW); however, where the Closed Views (specifically the determinist models) have the problem of reconciliation is to acknowledge that God allows needless suffering because it would require that God takes risks and moreso allows creation to dictate a good percentage of the details.

[geebob]

[b]chappie[/i]

In harmony with the context of what is spoken, according to 1, and 2a; we must choose how to best apply this definition in harmony with the context of what we are talking about. Therefore I contend that while “1” can be applied unrestrictedly; 2a must be applied with a grain of salt. We know that the biblical doctrine of freewill is not absolute nor is it unrestricted.

the problem with the definition that you quoted is that for one, it is a noun and when I speak of libertarian freedom, I am modifying the term freedom with the adjective libertarian.

also, it's not a bad idea to use a conventional dictionary for these purposes but nevertheless, those definitions are meant to give the basic idea of what the term means. basically a libertarian is someone who holds to a doctrine of free will, as websters suggested. But not all people who espouse free will are libertarians. You have to hold to a specific type of freedom.

There are compatibilists and those are people who believe that free will is compatible with determinism. These people are not libertarians and one of the reasons we use the term "libertarian" is to distinguish a view of free will that says that God determines how we will choose from those who believe that our determination on some fronts comes soley from us. Alot of your calvinists are compatibilists. They believe in freedom (or what they think constitutes freedom), but they are not libertarians.

The basic concept behind libertarian free will is the notion that all things being equal, you truly could have choosen otherwise.

If you believe that everyone has a chance to be saved because everyone can respond to God's gracious initiatives, but at the same time hold that just about anyone can be damned, and nothing determines which group you are in, then the type of freedom you hold to is the libertarian sort.

now some of the definions you have are of the libertarian sort. 2 gets us closest to the thing that philosophers typically pick out when discussing lfw. 4 could actually still be used by determinists. So we have alternatives. A compatibilist would admit this but he would say that God has determined which alternative would be choosen. 4a actually still works to their favor. They'd say that your values were determined in a chain of causation that went all the way back to God.


Where does the phrase libertarian freewill come from? Who decided that this term reasonably identifies anyone in harmony with what they believe.

it's a convention amongst philosophers. A philosophical dictionary would bear this out better than a normal one. The definition that I've given from alvin plantinga also represents a convention by many philosophers.


If we want to know what that doctrine is, we have to turn to scripture.

actually, both concepts of lfw and cfw have been developed independently of scripture and even arise from basic experience. But it is important to consider whether or not we can find scriptural suport, such what I've mentioned concerning God's universal salvific will.


Bottom line, we are only free to choose between the options that our creator has placed before us. It does not mean that we are free to create additional options. We choose between. We do not create options…..

that's quite within the range of libertarian freedom as long as the options God makes available are all truly accessable and he does not determin which options we have to work with.


Geebob, one of the reasons that we do not understand each other is that we are not even speaking the same language.

hope this helps. by all means, when I say something confusing, if you keep pressing the issue, keep pressing the issue and I might eventually be able to make it clear. Sometimes, I'm not simply speaking of complex issues but I really do make convoluted and outright incoherent statements. I have an aversion to double checking what I write. :egad:



In case your interested, I have a thread on libertarian freedom that is two fold. It gives reasons that would motivate God to give us libertarian freedom (mostly philosophical) and it shows scriptural support for libertarian freedom. I feel that the motivation for love is convoluted and needs to be reworded, but otherwise, most of what I have there is fairly clear.

[yxboom]

geebob:

chappie

There are compatibilists and those are people who believe that free will is compatible with determinism. These people are not libertarians and one of the reasons we use the term "libertarian" is to distinguish a view of free will that says that God determines how we will choose from those who believe that our determination on some fronts comes soley from us. Alot of your calvinists are compatibilists. They believe in freedom (or what they think constitutes freedom), but they are not libertarians.


Just don't let 1Way get wind of that and you will be fine.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 11:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140330#post140330)
yxboom:


Where this question I feel is much more reconcilable in the Open model is that God allows needless suffering as a fact of sin and reality (that dreaded acronym: LFW); however, where the Closed Views (specifically the determinist models) have the problem of reconciliation is to acknowledge that God allows needless suffering because it would require that God takes risks and moreso allows creation to dictate a good percentage of the details.

I actually see the Open model reconcilation as less satisfactory. I can't imagine telling the 7 year old raped girl that God allowed this because he couldn't impinge on the rapist's free will. What about her free will? It seems that on the Open View, human libertarian freedom is more important than anything else, including God and his desires. I find that theolgically and devotionally problematic. Not that I like the tradition Augustinian answer either.

My response would be that God enters into our suffering in Jesus and is there with us in the most evil of times. Have you read Elie Weisel's Night? That's what I'm talking about. The answer that I would give as a Trinitarian Theist is that God responds to our suffering by entering into it with us and extinguising it in the eschatological culmination in which all creation will be redeemed and our sorrows turned to joys. Therein lies that answer to the problem as I see it. God enters into our sufferings, not simply blinking them out of existence and making them meaningless, but by bringing us through them by traveling with us. And finally in the eschton, all the sufferings that we have endured will seem as nothing in the eternal bliss of participation in the life of the Triune God.

[geebob]

trinitarian


No, I read it. I didn't see you address the main point that I've been making. Namely, if the decisions of future free agents are things that can be known, God must necessarily know all of them, since the Scirptures say that God knows everything (1 Jn. 3:20)

That God knows how a compatible choice will be made entails nothing about the issue with libertarian choice.

And that God does not know which choice will be made when it's libertarian does not indicate that there really is something that he does not know. I believe God knows the future exhaustively and the reason that he does not know which future libertarian free choices we will make is because all the statements describing what we will do are false in such a situation. To consider this, lets consider my breakfast tomorrow, whether it will be oatmeal or not. If this is a libertarian decision, then it is both false that I will have oatmeal for breakfast tomarrow and it is false that I will not have oatmeal tomorrow. Why? because both of these statments express a certainty that does not exist. What is true in place of either of these statements is a conjoined might statement. I might have oatmeal tomarrow and I might not have oatmeal tomorrow. THat is what God knows because that is reality. Until I determine what I have, anything other than the conjoined might statement is ignorance of what the truth is.

The issue is not really omniscience. It's about the nature of reality.

I describe the nature of the reality in responding to your first point in my first post in this topic. I could also explain it more in terms of possible worlds ontology. This is not Hasker's view by the way. I don't believe in soft facts.

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

I actually see the Open model reconcilation as less satisfactory. I can't imagine telling the 7 year old raped girl that God allowed this because he couldn't impinge on the rapist's free will. What about her free will? It seems that on the Open View, human libertarian freedom is more important than anything else, including God and his desires. I find that theolgically and devotionally problematic. Not that I like the tradition Augustinian answer either.

You answered why the OV model is more coherent. Because God's concern for liberty and freedom. You answered, what about her freewill? That is exactly the point! Just as that 7 year old is given the liberty to do good or harm to another, that man was given the liberty to do harm to her. Just as she is able to turn to God in love in a reciprical relaitonship with God so she is able to reject it and hate God instead. Sin is the result of the risk God took in allowing not only that little girl the chance to freely enter into a reciprical relationship with God but it also allowed the rapist to cause harm to her out of hatred for God's desire to love mankind.


My response would be that God enters into our suffering in Jesus and is there with us in the most evil of times.

But this is all goes back to unneccessary acts of evil.


Have you read Elie Weisel's Night? That's what I'm talking about. The answer that I would give as a Trinitarian Theist is that God responds to our suffering by entering into it with us and extinguising it in the eschatological culmination in which all creation will be redeemed and our sorrows turned to joys. Therein lies that answer to the problem as I see it. God enters into our sufferings, not simply blinking them out of existence and making them meaningless, but by bringing us through them by traveling with us. And finally in the eschton, all the sufferings that we have endured will seem as nothing in the eternal bliss of participation in the life of the Triune God.

No I havent read that book but what value is the end if God already foreknew the means before He created?

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 11:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140348#post140348)
geebob:

That God knows how a compatible choice will be made entails nothing about the issue with libertarian choice.


This assumes that the a libertarian choice and a compatibilist choice are ontologically different realites. I don't see a good reason to assume that, thus my reasoning stands. I don't see how you can draw an a priori distinction between certain future choices. This seems very arbitrary, albeit some of the best responses that I've hear from Openness proponents.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140298#post140298)
Trinitarian:

I'm just glad that I'm able to have charitable discussions with Open Theists here. There aren't many...well ok ANY boards that I've found that foster good, irenic theological discussion and debate like TWeb.

Theology Online is definitely an OV site, and mind you, TWeb got all their ideas and basically "copied" TOL for this site. Check it out.



Nope, God says he knew Jeremiah BEFORE he was formed in the womb, not as he was formed in the womb. This is pre-conception. You should have done your homework. No Gold Star for you!

Does God know anything about DNA? The instant Jeremiah was conceived in his mother’s womb, God knew him. God knew Jeremiah before he began to grow and be formed by God into a male child, but not before he was conceived. God knew Jeremiah the instant he was conceived, not “from before the foundation of the world.” Show me anything scriptually that says God knew anyone "before the foundation of the world." Guess what? It's not there.


And yet Titus 1:2 tells us that he cannot lie. Thus, how can it be meaningful since there is only one possible outcome?

This only causes problems for you. If God does indeed know the future exhaustively He lied countless times in the Bible. There, I said it. The God of CV lies!


Well, I'm still gonna beleive that God cannot lie, if that's what you mean.

Trinitarian is finally an OV'er! :wink:


You may find it infinitely clear, but that's just because you have a theological ax to grind on this text. What Paul made clear is what Christ did, not what he could or could not do. I submit that Christ could not have disobeyed the Father, because that would have obliterated the unity of the Triune God, causing God to cease to exist. I find that very problematic.

I wish you could hear yourself. The concept that boom has been explaining to you is so very simple, yet you're letting your beliefs carve and define your theology. Listen to the truth. Christ became obedient to God's will for Him. What does this mean to you? Here's another verse.

John 5:30
30 I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the Father who sent Me.

Christ didn't even follow His own will, but that of the Father. He could have followed His own will, but rather became obedient and followed the will fo the Father.


Namely, if the decisions of future free agents are things that can be known, God must necessarily know all of them, since the Scirptures say that God knows everything (1 Jn. 3:20)

1 John 2:20
20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.

Do you know the future trinitarian? The future doesn't exist and is therefore unknowable. Does God know about the fourth person in the Trinity? Of course not, because it doesn't exist. God does indeed know ALL THINGS! Too bad for the CV, tomorrow deosn't exist.

[yxboom]

doogieduff:

Theology Online is definitely an OV site, and mind you, TWeb got all their ideas and basically "copied" TOL for this site. Check it out.


Come again? You are on crack if you think this site is a copy of TOL.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 11:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140349#post140349)
yxboom:

You answered why the OV model is more coherent. Because God's concern for liberty and freedom. You answered, what about her freewill? That is exactly the point! Just as that 7 year old is given the liberty to do good or harm to another, that man was given the liberty to do harm to her. Just as she is able to turn to God in love in a reciprical relaitonship with God so she is able to reject it and hate God instead. Sin is the result of the risk God took in allowing not only that little girl the chance to freely enter into a reciprical relationship with God but it also allowed the rapist to cause harm to her out of hatred for God's desire to love mankind.

That's the problem. The OV model cares more about freedom than it does about righteousness. It's a "freedom-at-all-costs-nothing-else-matters" way of thinking, and I just don't believe that that is the nature of the biblical God. The Openness God basically throws the innocent at the mercy of the powerful (since all have LFW, the powerful can basically do whatever they want) and refuses to do anything about it and moreover, there is no overarching purpose to such actions. What is devotionally superior about the idea of a God that values freedom above justice? The only people that should want to trust this God are the ones with power. What good does it do the oppressed and victimized to know that God values the freedom of thier opressors over their suffering? I couldn't live under such a God.


No I havent read that book but what value is the end if God already foreknew the means before He created?

God's knowing of the means in no way invalidates the end. Why must it?

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 11:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140360#post140360)
yxboom:



Come again? You are on crack if you think this site is a copy of TOL.

:rofl:

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

That's the problem. The OV model cares more about freedom than it does about righteousness. It's a "freedom-at-all-costs-nothing-else-matters" way of thinking, and I just don't believe that that is the nature of the biblical God. The Openness God basically throws the innocent at the mercy of the powerful (since all have LFW, the powerful can basically do whatever they want) and refuses to do anything about it and moreover, there is no overarching purpose to such actions. What is devotionally superior about the idea of a God that values freedom above justice? The only people that should want to trust this God are the ones with power. What good does it do the oppressed and victimized to know that God values the freedom of thier opressors over their suffering? I couldn't live under such a God.

It exalts justice in that it places responsibilty squarely on the offenders shoulders. It increases our moral responsibility to care for the poor, widows and fatherless, etc. God values freedom significantly in that love under coercion is no love it all. There is a resurrection and there will be a judgment seat that all men will answer for their deeds. Liberty and freedom does not negate justice but exalt it.


God's knowing of the means in no way invalidates the end. Why must it?

Cause assuming God is good and infintly wise in His determination would know a better way?

[Trinitarian]

Doogie:


Show me anything scriptually that says God knew anyone "before the foundation of the world." Guess what? It's not there.

Most of the stuff you brought up I have already been over with Boom, and I don't care to rehash it here, but I couldn't resist this. You sure it's not there?

...all who dwell on the earth will worship it [the Beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.

Revelation 13:8 (ESV)

I await the OV spin that is sure to come.

[yxboom]

Trin,

I do have a reasonable response which I would more than gladly address at another time but Doogie is a more radical Open Viewer than most here so I will give him the oppurtunity to reply. And well that TOL lunancy didn't help his case either :teeth:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 05:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140373#post140373)
Trinitarian:

Doogie:



Most of the stuff you brought up I have already been over with Boom, and I don't care to rehash it here, but I couldn't resist this. You sure it's not there?

...all who dwell on the earth will worship it [the Beast], everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb that was slain.

Revelation 13:8 (ESV)

I await the OV spin that is sure to come.

Are you serious? There was a book called the Book of Life and it's from before the foundation of the world. That's it. God started writing names in it as time passed, and mind you, our names are not in it, but that's a dispensational idea which we won't get into. BTW, nice try on the inverted translation. The verse doesn't say names were written in it before the foundation of the world, but rather the book is from before the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The verse is clear. The names must in the book of life, which is from before the foundation of the world.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:02 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140371#post140371)
yxboom:

It exalts justice in that it places responsibilty squarely on the offenders shoulders. It increases our moral responsibility to care for the poor, widows and fatherless, etc. God values freedom significantly in that love under coercion is no love it all. There is a resurrection and there will be a judgment seat that all men will answer for their deeds. Liberty and freedom does not negate justice but exalt it.


All views grant that judgement will come, this doesn't make the OV more satisfactory. All this means is that sin will eventually be punished. That's hardly comforting to the 7 year old that was raped. I find the explanation of God entering into our sufferings in Christ far more comforting than simply knowing that the offenders will some day be judged. While the OV, like all the other views holds that everyone will be punished for the sins, this doesn't help with the problem of suffering.

Moreover, "love under coercion" and Open Theism are not the only two choices. This is blatently a false dichotomy. Simply because one doesn't hold to Open Theism doesn't mean that they hold that all choices are coerced, nor is this the logical necesity.


Cause assuming God is good and infintly wise in His determination would know a better way?

This militates against the OV as well, couldn't an infinitely wise God have created a world in which he wouldn't have to take risks, and allow all kinds of atrocities? This sword cuts both ways.

[$cirisme]

Just skimming this thread right now, but it is a fascinating read. :read:

Thanks guys, I appreciate the stimulating discussion as a lurker.

:flaming:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 04:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140360#post140360)
yxboom:



Come again? You are on crack if you think this site is a copy of TOL.

Well, I know the guys who run TOL and it's been around for a LOOOOOONG time. Tweb, very new, looks very much a like. Also, there are quite a few of the same names from TOL that are now on here. Guess what? Yxboom is one of them... :teeth:

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:11 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140377#post140377)
doogieduff:



Are you serious? There was a book called the Book of Life and it's from before the foundation of the world. That's it. God started writing names in it as time passed, and mind you, our names are not in it, but that's a dispensational idea which we won't get into. BTW, nice try on the inverted translation. The verse doesn't say names were written in it before the foundation of the world, but rather the book is from before the foundation of the world.

Nope the verse refers to the names being written in it before the foudnation of the world, not just the book. Sorry.

Check out 17:8 as well:

The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.

[$cirisme]

doogieduff:

Revelation 13:8
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The verse is clear. The names must in the book of life, which is from before the foundation of the world.

That would be a perfect explanation, and not to get into something off topic, could you provide justification for translating the verse this way rather than the other way? I just checked Esword and of the translations I have, only 1(KJV) has it translated this way.

I'm only interested in what it really says, and I get picky when translations differ like that. :brow:

:cheers:

[Trinitarian]

Check out the translators notes from the NET. Both the NET and The ESV translate it as I quote it. I haven't checked any others yet, but I will.


The prepositional phrase “since the foundation of the world” is traditionally translated as a modifier of the immediately preceding phrase in the Greek text, “the Lamb who was killed” (so also G. B. Caird, Revelation [HNTC], 168), but it is more likely that the phrase “since the foundation of the world” modifies the verb “written” (as translated above). Confirmation of this can be found in Rev 17:8 where the phrase “written in the book of life since the foundation of the world” occurs with no ambiguity.

Check out 17:8 as well where it's completely unambiguous:

The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 05:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140382#post140382)
Trinitarian:



Nope the verse refers to the names being written in it before the foudnation of the world, not just the book. Sorry.

Check out 17:8 as well:

The beast you saw was, and is not, but is about to come up from the abyss and then go to destruction. The inhabitants of the earth—all those whose names have not been written in the book of life since the foundation of the world—will be astounded when they see that the beast was, and is not, but is to come.

Nope. You run into a huge problem if you believe that.

Revelation 22:19
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Why would God write a name in the Book of Life befoer the foundation of the world, if He "foreknew" He would take it out? Hmmm...He wouldn't. That doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that He wrote the names in it throughout time and took them out as well.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140379#post140379)
cirisme:

Just skimming this thread right now, but it is a fascinating read. :read:

Thanks guys, I appreciate the stimulating discussion as a lurker.

:flaming:

Yay! The Lurker factor paied off!! This made it all worth it! :highfive:

[yxboom]

Thanks for the discussion Trin, off to dinner. Peace out!

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140389#post140389)
doogieduff:



Nope. You run into a huge problem if you believe that.

Revelation 22:19
19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

Why would God write a name in the Book of Life befoer the foundation of the world, if He &quot;foreknew&quot; He would take it out? Hmmm...He wouldn't. That doesn't make sense. What does make sense is that He wrote the names in it throughout time and took them out as well.

Uhh, your quoting the KJV, and the last chapter of Revelation in the KJV was back-translated by Erasmus from the Latin into Greek. The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts don't read "book of Life" in 22:19, but "Tree of Life." So I don't have a huge problem. Not a problem at all.

Did you take a look at 17:8? It's not ambiguous in the least there.

[Trinitarian]

Today @ 12:25 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140396#post140396)
yxboom:

Thanks for the discussion Trin, off to dinner. Peace out!

Yo, me too! God bless you man. It has been a good discussion. I'll see y'all tomorrow!

[$cirisme]

Trinitarian:

Yay! The Lurker factor paied off!! This made it all worth it! :highfive:

Before you get those victory signs ordered, remember I haven't said which side I am leaning at this paticular moment. :wink:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 05:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140397#post140397)
Trinitarian:



Uhh, your quoting the KJV, and the last chapter of Revelation in the KJV was back-translated by Erasmus from the Latin into Greek. The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts don't read &quot;book of Life&quot; in 22:19, but &quot;Tree of Life.&quot; So I don't have a huge problem. Not a problem at all.

Did you take a look at 17:8? It's not ambiguous in the least there.

Actually you do have a problem.

Revelation 3:5
5 He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

If you do this, your name will not be blotted out, but what do you think will happen if you do the opposite? Yup. Your names WILL be blotted out. Your theology has so many holes! BTW, I'm not using the KJV.

Revelation 17:8 says the Book of Life is from the foundation of the world, not the names. The fact that they can be blotted out kills your "theory."

[$cirisme]

BTW, I'm not using the KJV.

What are you using, just out of curiosity?

And is there Greek support for it?

I'm less concerned with the translations than I am of the Greek. :smile:

[doogieduff]

Today @ 05:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140407#post140407)
cirisme:



What are you using, just out of curiosity?

And is there Greek support for it?

I'm less concerned with the translations than I am of the Greek. :smile:

NEW King James! :wink:

Much better than the KJV! I know a Greek scholar and I've emailed him about the verse. I'll post his response for ya as soon as I get it! It really shouldn't change anything though. An exegesis of any verse about the "Book of Life" clearly shows that the book is before the foundation of the world, not all the names.

[doogieduff]

BTW Trinitarian, are you going to answer anything else in my long post to you? Or just the "before the foundation of the world" thing?

[$cirisme]

doogieduff:

NEW King James! :wink:

Much better than the KJV!

I hear ya, it's my favorite. :smile:


I know a Greek scholar and I've emailed him about the verse. I'll post his response for ya as soon as I get it! It really shouldn't change anything though. An exegesis of any verse about the "Book of Life" clearly shows that the book is before the foundation of the world, not all the names.

Great! :thumb: When Jaltus gets back, I'd be interested in his opinion, too.

Take care and God bless,
-AJ

[yxboom]

Trinitarian:

All views grant that judgement will come, this doesn't make the OV more satisfactory. All this means is that sin will eventually be punished. That's hardly comforting to the 7 year old that was raped. I find the explanation of God entering into our sufferings in Christ far more comforting than simply knowing that the offenders will some day be judged. While the OV, like all the other views holds that everyone will be punished for the sins, this doesn't help with the problem of suffering.

This is an argument past my position since I would agree 100% that God suffers under mankinds evil deeds and that He shares both joy and pain along with us. I can not explain how God does as this would require that God experiences billions of contrary emotions at the same time no more than I can explain how God is able to hear and answer all the prayers we send up to Him on a daily basis. But by no means is God impassible. I still affirm that the OV handles the problem of evil in a more healthy way in that God for the sake of reciprocity and the freedom to exercise it would give mankind the freedom to do harm which exalts the joy that results from mankind doing good.


Moreover, "love under coercion" and Open Theism are not the only two choices. This is blatently a false dichotomy. Simply because one doesn't hold to Open Theism doesn't mean that they hold that all choices are coerced, nor is this the logical necesity.

I think you read more into what was said because I am not demanding that only Open Theism offers this possibility. All Arminianistic beliefs would fall into this category so I think you over-reacted to my comment.


This militates against the OV as well, couldn't an infinitely wise God have created a world in which he wouldn't have to take risks, and allow all kinds of atrocities? This sword cuts both ways.

Sure God could have created a world where risks would not exist, but the OVT I believe offers a more coherent and Biblically sincere portrait of reality and why God did not choose to create such a possible world. It is a matter of explaining why God didn't create this possible world and moreso why He created this one and all the underlying issues that that raises.

[geebob]

This assumes that the a libertarian choice and a compatibilist choice are ontologically different realites. I don't see a good reason to assume that, thus my reasoning stands.

er... as a matter of fact, they are.:huh: :doh:

compatibilistic choices are determined. libertarian free choices are not.


I don't see how you can draw an a priori distinction between certain future choices. This seems very arbitrary, albeit some of the best responses that I've hear from Openness proponents.

It is an a priori fact. It's not arbitrary in the slightest. definitions work that way. just like I can tell you that a bachelor will always be unmarried.




Revelation 13:8 (ESV)

I await the OV spin that is sure to come.

doogie's is a new one I haven't seen before.

I'd say, look at luke 11:50-51

50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all

the greek is the same. So for something that is "from the foundation" is not something that necessarily took place right at the beginning even before the fall but may refer to an ongoing process that has been happening ever since.



aye carumba! six pages in how many days? this threads going too fast. It's multiplying like :bunny:'s

[yxboom]

geebob:

doogie's is a new one I haven't seen before.

I'd say, look at luke 11:50-51

50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all

the greek is the same. So for something that is "from the foundation" is not something that necessarily took place right at the beginning even before the fall but may refer to an ongoing process that has been happening ever since.


Awesome bro :thumb:

That is also why I left Doogie to explain it himself as I anticipated his reply would be atypical of the OVT's on the site.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 08:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140471#post140471)
geebob:

doogie's is a new one I haven't seen before.

I'd say, look at luke 11:50-51

50Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all

the greek is the same. So for something that is &quot;from the foundation&quot; is not something that necessarily took place right at the beginning even before the fall but may refer to an ongoing process that has been happening ever since.



aye carumba! six pages in how many days? this threads going too fast. It's multiplying like :bunny:'s

How is this any different than what I said?


Today @ 05:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140377#post140377)
doogieduff:

Are you serious? There was a book called the Book of Life and it's from before the foundation of the world. That's it. God started writing names in it as time passed, and mind you, our names are not in it, but that's a dispensational idea which we won't get into. BTW, nice try on the inverted translation. The verse doesn't say names were written in it before the foundation of the world, but rather the book is from before the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8
8 All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The verse is clear. The names must in the book of life, which is from before the foundation of the world.

[Xmansmommy]

:shy:

[trueseeker]

I recently changed my perspective on the Book of Life. I had the typical view that it was some type of book or scroll that had names in it. In which the Lord has been keeping notes in since before the foundation of the world. But now I see it as another of the many names for Jesus. Jesus existed before the foundation of the world, all those found to be 'in Him' on the judgement day will be found worthy to enter into His eternal kingdom.

The greek word that is translated 'name' in this passage can also be translated 'character'. For example it is a much better translation in the passage that says, 'ask anything in Jesus' name and it will be given to you', to translate it 'ask anything in Jesus' character and it will be given to you'. The power is not from saying, "In Jesus name", it is from asking from a heart that is in the character of Jesus. So too I think this passage refers to those who characters are in the image of Jesus, not just names on a page.

[geebob]

How is this any different than what I said?

It seems like you focus on how the book itself was present at the foundation. I focused on how the term "from" implies something different from "before", and I focused on the time of the writting.

Actually, reading some of your statements again, I see that they are fairly similar and not necessarily contrary.

too the extent that they are different is not a bad thing. To be able to approach a problem from several different angles only strengthens a paradigm. Chance had yet another take, two other's to be exact. One was pretty interesting and the other not so good. He'd refference a verse that expressed something to the effect "have you not known from the foundation of the world" or something like that. Well of course the readers couldn't literally have known since the foundation. This was a grandious way of putting it and perhaps the passages of revelations could be understood in a likewise fashion.

I do prefer my own answer the most though. But at the same time, I don't think it's a bad idea to approach it from other angles.

[doogieduff]

Today @ 03:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140592#post140592)
geebob:



It seems like you focus on how the book itself was present at the foundation. I focused on how the term &quot;from&quot; implies something different from &quot;before&quot;, and I focused on the time of the writting.

Actually, reading some of your statements again, I see that they are fairly similar and not necessarily contrary.

too the extent that they are different is not a bad thing. To be able to approach a problem from several different angles only strengthens a paradigm. Chance had yet another take, two other's to be exact. One was pretty interesting and the other not so good. He'd refference a verse that expressed something to the effect &quot;have you not known from the foundation of the world&quot; or something like that. Well of course the readers couldn't literally have known since the foundation. This was a grandious way of putting it and perhaps the passages of revelations could be understood in a likewise fashion.

I do prefer my own answer the most though. But at the same time, I don't think it's a bad idea to approach it from other angles.

I actually see now your answer and how it relates to Luke 11, something I didn't know. I like it!

[doogieduff]

Cirisme and all others interested, an opinion from a Greek scholar and friend of mine:

"Will:

Great to hear from you again!

I see two issues in the competing renderings of Revelation 13:8 you’ve cited. The “one guy” translation has “before the foundation of the world” where NKJV has “from the foundation of the world”; “one guy” places the adverbial phrase to modify ‘written’ where NKJV has it modifying ‘slain’.

On the first issue, I’d go with NKJV all the way. The text of Revelation is swimming with variants, but I’m not aware of any manuscript which reads pro kataboles kosmou (‘before the foundation...’) rather than apo kataboles kosmou (‘since the foundation...’, or in KJV/NKJV, ‘from...’) If your guy can furnish some manuscript evidence for ‘before’, I’d be happy to review it, but I’ve not seen any. (Actually, even if such a reading exists, it would be quite awkward to say that their names “have not been written before the foundation...” -- even in Revelation, that would demand an aorist rather than a perfect.)

On the second issue, I would say that NKJV is the more natural reading of the syntax. However, when we compare Revelation 13:8 with 17:8, we find the identical text without the phrase about the Lamb: “whose names have not been written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.” That leads me to believe that the adverbial phrase in 13:8 likewise modifies ‘written’ rather than ‘slain’, even though it would be more natural to take it as modifying ‘slain’ (chalk this one up to the rather unique syntax of Revelation). So I would go with “one guy” on this point.

However... you raise an interesting point. As I reread your question, I see that you’re taking “since the foundation of the world” as describing the existence of the Book of Life rather than the status of the names being written (or, in this case, not written). I’ve never approached the text that way. Normally in Greek, the word order would be different in order to express that thought. But, we are dealing with Revelation. So I’ll have to mull that one over. I would say it’s less likely, even here, for the adverbial phrase to modify the noun ‘book’ rather than the verb ‘written’.

As to the relevance of this text to the Open View: certainly “one guy’s” rendering wouldn’t work, but that’s largely due to the mistranslation of apo as ‘before’. Taking it as “not written since the foundation of the world”, I see no conflict with OV. It simply means that at no time since the creation of the world have these individuals’ names been entered into the Book. It doesn’t imply that their names have existed since the creation or anything to that effect. If it were in the affirmative — so and so’s name has been written since the foundation of the world — that would be quite troublesome, because it would imply that so-and-so has existed as an individual in the mind of God at least since creation. But, in the negative, it’s just a bit of a dramatic hyperbole: so-and-so has never been... In a sense, this runs full circle back to your idea, that the Book of Life has existed since the creation, available for any individual’s name to be written in it, but these individuals’ names, because of their wrong choice, have not been entered during their lifetime.

Shalom!

tim "

[Chappie]

Yesterday @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=143681#post143681)
doogieduff:

Cirisme and all others interested, an opinion from a Greek scholar and friend of mine:

&quot;Will:

Great to hear from you again!

I see two issues in the competing renderings of Revelation 13:8 you’ve cited. The “one guy” translation has “before the foundation of the world” where NKJV has “from the foundation of the world”; “one guy” places the adverbial phrase to modify ‘written’ where NKJV has it modifying ‘slain’.

On the first issue, I’d go with NKJV all the way. The text of Revelation is swimming with variants, but I’m not aware of any manuscript which reads pro kataboles kosmou (‘before the foundation...’) rather than apo kataboles kosmou (‘since the foundation...’, or in KJV/NKJV, ‘from...’) If your guy can furnish some manuscript evidence for ‘before’, I’d be happy to review it, but I’ve not seen any. (Actually, even if such a reading exists, it would be quite awkward to say that their names “have not been written before the foundation...” -- even in Revelation, that would demand an aorist rather than a perfect.)

On the second issue, I would say that NKJV is the more natural reading of the syntax. However, when we compare Revelation 13:8 with 17:8, we find the identical text without the phrase about the Lamb: “whose names have not been written in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.” That leads me to believe that the adverbial phrase in 13:8 likewise modifies ‘written’ rather than ‘slain’, even though it would be more natural to take it as modifying ‘slain’ (chalk this one up to the rather unique syntax of Revelation). So I would go with “one guy” on this point.

However... you raise an interesting point. As I reread your question, I see that you’re taking “since the foundation of the world” as describing the existence of the Book of Life rather than the status of the names being written (or, in this case, not written). I’ve never approached the text that way. Normally in Greek, the word order would be different in order to express that thought. But, we are dealing with Revelation. So I’ll have to mull that one over. I would say it’s less likely, even here, for the adverbial phrase to modify the noun ‘book’ rather than the verb ‘written’.

As to the relevance of this text to the Open View: certainly “one guy’s” rendering wouldn’t work, but that’s largely due to the mistranslation of apo as ‘before’. Taking it as “not written since the foundation of the world”, I see no conflict with OV. It simply means that at no time since the creation of the world have these individuals’ names been entered into the Book. It doesn’t imply that their names have existed since the creation or anything to that effect. If it were in the affirmative — so and so’s name has been written since the foundation of the world — that would be quite troublesome, because it would imply that so-and-so has existed as an individual in the mind of God at least since creation. But, in the negative, it’s just a bit of a dramatic hyperbole: so-and-so has never been... In a sense, this runs full circle back to your idea, that the Book of Life has existed since the creation, available for any individual’s name to be written in it, but these individuals’ names, because of their wrong choice, have not been entered during their lifetime.

Shalom!

tim &quot;

Great post, I have beem blessed by it. That means that something that I did not understand before, now makes prefectly good sense...

I do not dance in the Hebrew or the Greek, still some not quite up to snuff translations appear to be so when we are careful with context and reconcile scripture with scripture...