Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/4/2009 11:00 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Here are some interesting comments by Gregory of Nyssa I ran across re: divine foreknowledge. VERY INTERESTING. His reasoning and argumentation in “On Infants’ Early Deaths” (viz., that God uses his forknowledge of future evils to be committed by certain infants SHOULD they reach maturity as the basis for his choice to eliminate SOME of them now) is, I gotta tel ya, not good. Wow. Come on now, D. This is bad reasoning.

 

---------------------------

 

“On the Making of Man”

 

An establishment of the doctrine that the cause of the existence of soul and body is one and the same.

 

1. Nor again are we in our doctrine to begin by making up man like a clay figure, and to say that the soul came into being for the sake of this; for surely in that case the intellectual nature would be shown to be less precious than the clay figure. But as man is one, the being consisting of soul and body, we are to suppose that the beginning of his existence is one, common to both parts, so that he should not be found to be antecedent and posterior to himself, if the bodily element were first in point of time, and the other were a later addition; but we are to say that in the power of God’s foreknowledge (according to the doctrine laid down a little earlier in our discourse), all the fulness of human nature had pre-existence (and to this the prophetic writing bears witness, which says that God “knoweth all things before they be”), and in the creation of individuals not to place the one element before the other, neither the soul before the body, nor the contrary, that man may not be at strife against himself, by being divided by the difference in point of time.

 

---------------------------

 

“On Infants’ Early Deaths”

 

It is a sign of the perfection of God’s providence, that He not only heals maladies that have come into existence, but also provides that some should be never mixed up at all in the things which He has forbidden; it is reasonable to expect that He Who knows the future equally with the past should check the advance of an infant to complete maturity, in order that the evil may not be developed which His foreknowledge has detected in his future life, and in order that a lifetime granted to one whose evil dispositions will be lifelong may not become the actual material for his vice. We shall better explain what we are thinking of by an illustration.

 

…Therefore, to prevent one who has indulged in the carousals to an improper extent from lingering over so profusely furnished a table, he is early taken from the number of the banqueters, and thereby secures an escape out of those evils which unmeasured indulgence procures for gluttons. This is that achievement of a perfect Providence which I spoke of; namely, not only to heal evils that have been committed, but also to forestall them before they have been committed; and this, we suspect, is the cause of the deaths of new-born infants. He who does all things upon a Plan withdraws the materials for evil in His love to the individual, and, to a character whose marks His Foreknowledge has read, grants no time to display by a pre-eminence in actual vice what it is when its propensity to evil gets free play.

 

…In fine, you will ask, wherefore does God in His Providence withdraw one from life before his character can be perfected in evil, and leave another to grow to be such a monster that it had been better for him if he had never been born? In answer to this we will give, to those who are inclined to receive it favorably, a reason such as follows: viz. that oftentimes the existence of those whose life has been a good one operates to the advantage of their offspring; and there are hundreds of passages testifying to this in the inspired Writings, which clearly teach us that the tender care shown by God to those who have deserved it is shared in by their successors, and that even to have been an obstruction, in the path to wickedness, to anyone who is sure to live wickedly, is a good result.

 

….But seeing that our Reason in this matter has to grope in the dark, clearly no one can complain if its conjecturing leads our mind to a variety of conclusions. Well, then, not only one might pronounce that God, in kindness to the Founders of some Family, withdraws a member of it who is going to live a bad life from that bad life, but, even if there is no antecedent such as this in the case of some early deaths, it is not unreasonable to conjecture that they would have plunged into a vicious life with a more desperate vehemence than any of those who have actually become notorious for their wickedness. That nothing happens without God we know from many sources; and, reversely, that God’s dispensations have no element of chance and confusion in them every one will allow, who realizes that God is Reason, and Wisdom, and Perfect Goodness, and Truth, and could not admit of that which is not good and not consistent with His Truth. Whether, then, the early deaths of infants are to be attributed to the aforesaid causes, or whether there is some further cause of them beyond these, it befits us to acknowledge that these things happen for the best.

 

…But someone will say, “It is not all who thus reap in this life the fruits of their wickedness, any more than all those whose lives have been virtuous profit while living by their virtuous endeavours; what then, I ask, is the advantage of their existence in the case of these who live to the end unpunished?” I will bring forward to meet this question of yours a reason which transcends all human arguments. Somewhere in his utterances the great David declares that some portion of the blessedness of the virtuous will consist in this; in contemplating side by side with their own felicity the perdition of the reprobate. He says, “The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance; he shall wash his hands in the blood of the ungodly”; not indeed as rejoicing over the torments of those sufferers, but as then most completely realizing the extent of the well-earned rewards of virtue. He signifies by those words that it will be an addition to the felicity of the virtuous and an intensification of it, to have its contrary set against it.

 

…The premature deaths of infants have nothing in them to suggest the thought that one who so terminates his life is subject to some grievous misfortune, any more than they are to be put on a level with the deaths of those who have purified themselves in this life by every kind of virtue; the more far-seeing Providence of God curtails the immensity of sins in the case of those whose lives are going to be so evil. That some of the wicked have lived on does not upset this reason which we have rendered; for the evil was in their case hindered in kindness to their parents; whereas, in the case of those whose parents have never imparted to them any power of calling upon God, such a form of the Divine kindness, which accompanies such a power, is not transmitted to their own children; otherwise the infant now prevented by death from growing up wicked would have exhibited a far more desperate wickedness than the most notorious sinners, seeing that it would have been unhindered. Even granting that some have climbed to the topmost pinnacle of crime, the Apostolic view supplies a comforting answer to the question; for He Who does everything with Wisdom knows how to affect by means of evil some good. Still further, if some occupy a pre-eminence in crime, and yet for all that have never been a metal, to use our former illustration, that God’s skill has used for any good, this is a case which constitutes an addition to the happiness of the good, as the Prophet’s words suggest; it may be reckoned as not a slight element in that happiness, nor, on the other hand, as one unworthy of God’s providing.

 

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 8/4/2009 11:27 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom:
God uses his forknowledge of future evils to be committed by certain infants SHOULD they reach maturity as the basis for his choice to eliminate SOME of them now.

Wasn't this the implicit justification for divinely-sanctioned annihilation of infants of idolatrous peoples back in the OT? They would have grown up to be bad idolaters and they were "better off dead", slain by God's servant people, as it were.


God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.

"I love, therefore I am in I Am.  God is my life."

"God in Christ by His Spirit empowers, enables, energizes and enacts all Christian behavior and ministry as the dynamic expression of the life of Jesus Christ. Christianity is Christ. Christian living is the life and character of Jesus Christ lived out through the Christian."  -James Fowler

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/5/2009 2:18 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
They're similar I suppose. But GN's point would be applied to infants of believers from wonderful families. The OT argument isn't foreknowledge of specific outcomes as much as it is reasoning from existing evil societal influences to what kids are likely to turn out to be. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the OT argument. But GN is reasoning that since God foreknows the specific evil this specific child will do, and since God doesn't want that specific evil around, God kills the infant.

My point is that to the extent any argument that God acts NOW, based on what he foreknows WILL happen, in order to prevent what he foreknows from happening, is an invalid argument. Such present action based on foreknowledge of future outcomes is impossible. That foreknown future is ALREADY by definition THE RESULT OF whatever was done in an attempt to bring it about or prevent it. It cannot ALSO be the BASIS for actions taken to bring it about or prevent it. God cannot take infants out for the reasons GN supposes. It's quite impossible.

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/5/2009 2:22:24 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/5/2009 11:29 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Somebody told me that when they read these passages in GN, they thought of a recent couple they spoke with who were struggling in their faith from having just giving birth to a stillborn baby. My friend wondered what would have happened had he responded with, "God must have known your precious baby was going to grow up to be worse than Hitler since God killed your baby but not Hitler."

Exactly.

T
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/5/2009 11:54 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Looking closely.......

"...all the fulness of human nature had pre-existence..."

It is important not to read this nominalistically. (medieval nominalisms--like Luther--and not modern philosophical nominalism like Greg studied in school)
 
 
"Fulness" is a very Eastern term.



(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 8/5/2009 12:06:45 PM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/5/2009 12:04 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

quotes-  

"In answer to this we will give, to those who are inclined to receive it favorably..."

"….But seeing that our Reason in this matter has to grope in the dark, clearly no one can complain if its conjecturing leads our mind to a variety of conclusions."

"That nothing happens without God we know from many sources; and, reversely, that God’s dispensations have no element of chance and confusion in them every one will allow, who realizes that God is Reason, and Wisdom, and Perfect Goodness, and Truth, and could not admit of that which is not good and not consistent with His Truth."

 


(o)

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/5/2009 1:11 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Why, on the foreknowledge hypothesis, doesn't God kill ALL infants that He foreknew would do great evil? These kinds of explanations always end up begging other questions--questions that we simply can not answer plausibly.


 

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/5/2009 1:55 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Similtude said...
Why,. . .doesn't God kill ALL. . .questions that we simply can not answer plausibly.
This begins to get near the point.
 
 
Seems that the more we try to put God and his activities in a box the worse the scenerio plays out theoretically. That's why--so it seems--GN made this hesitency to be his thesis, and examples only tenatively offered.
 


(o)

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/6/2009 2:31 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Right, Jeff. IF we accept his premise--that God kills or does not kill infants on the basis of foreknowing the good or evil they do--THEN we have no plausible answers. But before even getting into all those questions, my objection is that the premise is meaningless. One cannot prevent what one foreknows. What does it mean to "foreknow" that a particular child matures and commits evils? It's to know that that IS the future. Not even God can escape THAT future. If he can change it or avoid it by killing babies, then THAT would be the future he foreknows, not the future he prevents. If the sort of action Gregory appeals to is impossible, everything he says that requires it fails, and it does.

Tom
Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/6/2009 2:35 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
POW, do you agree with Gregory that God kills infants on the basis of foreknowing the evil they commit?

Tom
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/6/2009 7:29 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom said...
POW, do you agree with Gregory that God kills infants on the basis of foreknowing the evil they commit?

Tom
That's not his thesis. He would never comd out and say such a thing, as a thesis; he comes out plainly and says as much.
 
I just found it VERY interesting that you underlined all the things that were not his thesis, and instead underlined the things GN only wrote with self-declared trepedation.
 
It didn't look to me that you understood iwhyi he wrote like he did -- you seemed to treat him like he was one of your own contemporaries.
 
That is why I quoted from GN what I did, and echoed in Jeff what I did.
 
In my own words above:  Seems that the more we try to put God and his activities in a box the worse the scenerio plays out theoretically. That's why--so it seems--GN made this hesitency to be his thesis, and examples only tenatively offered.
 
Bruce


(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 8/6/2009 7:36:13 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/6/2009 7:34 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
The Heidelberg Catechism

Question 42. Since Christ has died for us, why do we still have to die?

Answer. Our death does not pay the debt of our sins. Rather, it puts an end to our sinning and is our entrance into eternal life.


(o)

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/7/2009 12:30 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Hi Bruce,

 

Gregory certainly IS offering reasons and argumentation for why God sometimes takes the lives of infants. If he does so with trepidation, good for him. I’m not debating the humility with which he makes his point. But he’s IS arguing a view of why infants die, and that view is that on the basis of foreknowing the evils that infants commit as mature adults, God sometimes decides it’s best to prevent those evils by preventing the life of their perpetrator. So God aborts those infants. And this, Gregory argues, is a kindness and mercy to the infant and the world who are spared the misery and suffering of these evils.

 

I have to believe that you’re just reacting to the fact that Gregory's view is being criticized. But if it’s really the case that you either cannot see what Gregory’s arguing here or for some reason can’t bring yourself to admit what his view on infants’ death here is, then I can no longer take ANYTHING you say seriously at all. Sorry.

 

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 8/7/2009 2:26:07 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/7/2009 8:47 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi, Tom.

No, I was not reacting to GN being criticized. (He deserves crit. for the "mousetrap" theory of atonement.)

I was responding to what I thought curious that you'd underlined the opposite things than I would.

And I was being serious: I think GN would worry that you might be missing his central point.


(o)

Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 8/7/2009 11:51:12 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/7/2009 11:49 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom said...

...God sometimes...God sometimes...

I agree.


(o)

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 8/7/2009 12:08 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I don't think I have any sizable disagreement with you, Tom. Everything's cool on this end. :-)


(o)

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/8/2009 1:26 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom: One cannot prevent what one foreknows. What does it mean to "foreknow" that a particular child matures and commits evils? It's to know that that IS the future.

Jeff: Indeed, I forget how convoluted this stuff can get! <G>


 

Back to Top
 

Sahid
Megistered Rember




Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
 
   Posted 8/8/2009 1:42 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
GN's view is problematic, but not for reasons of impossibility. We can charitably read him to be talking about God's foreknowledge not of the future but of what the future would have been. Maybe he doesn't spell out this distiction, but I think we can reasonably assume he had it in mind. Just as I can foreknow that the cup would have broken had I not stopped it from rolling off the table, God can foreknow what would have happened to objects had he not intervened. He can see the possible futures and choose one.

The problem is that people are not mere objects. As self determining entities, people are not properly predictable. GN's position works fine so long as he deprives persons of free will (which is what the idea of foreknowledge of 'free' choice does).
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/9/2009 5:33 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Z: The problem is that people are not mere objects. As self determining entities, people are not properly predictable. GN's position works fine so long as he deprives persons of free will (which is what the idea of foreknowledge of 'free' choice does).

J: I think that was Tom's point. Namely, that as open theists, we can't make sense of what non-open theists even mean by foreknowledge. For the minute we define it in a way that is intelligible to us, we're right back to open theism.


 

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:56 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads