 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Omniscience - (Some questions for Greg Boyd) | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
yankee551
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 9/6/2001 9:55 PM (GMT -6) |   | Dear Greg Boyd,
Greetings to you Mr. Boyd and to anyone else out there in Internetland who is reading this letter. I have some questions and I would really like to hear your response to these. Of course anyone is welcome to respond to this letter. I already know where you stand on the issue of self-limited FORE-knowledge and I agree with your stance. I would like to know where you stand on the issues of self-limited PAST-knowledge and self-limited PRESENT-knowledge. I must say that the same Bible that quotes God as saying, "neither came it into my mind" and "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." also quotes God as saying, "and their sins and their iniquities will I REMEMBER no more". Not remembering something (by God's sovereign will and not by a weak and failing memory) certainly seems to apply more to Past-knowledge then it does to Fore-knowledge. I will also say that the angel of the lord did NOT say to Abraham, "Now I know that thou FEARED (past tense) me". He also did NOT say, "WILL fear (future tense)" either. The angel of the lord DID say, "now I know that thou FEAREST (present tense) me". This sounds to me like a better case for self-limited PRESENT-knowledge then it does for self-limited FORE-knowledge. I would also like to know if you believe that God ONLY foreknows as definite what He specifically foreordains to happen in the future. I do not believe that God's foreknowledge of definite future events is dependant on his foreordaining them to happen. I believe that God is able to foreknow as a result of his foreordaining and that he is also able to foreknow as definite even what he has NOT foreordained simply by foreseeing into the future. I believe that it is perfectly possible for God to NOT foreknow the choices I will make tomorrow with a libertarian style of freedom and yet at the same time still foreknow as definite the choices I will compatiblisticly make next week. I realize that some would argue that the choices I will make tomorrow will build up to the choices I will have next week and in their minds that logically requires that in order for God to foreknow as definite what my choices next week will be and how I will choose then he must also foreknow as definite what my choice will be tomorrow and how I will choose. Due to the fact that I believe that our omnipotent God is capable of foreseeing into next week without foreseeing into tomorrow if he wills to do it like so, I therefore reject their line of reasoning. Thank you for any response you may have Mr. Boyd and also thanks to anyone else for any response they may have.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 9/6/2001 10:19 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Yankee: I believe that God is able to foreknow as a result of his foreordaining and that he is also able to foreknow as definite even what he has NOT foreordained simply by foreseeing into the future.
I am thinking about what I have heard mentioned several times before that God knows the future as ALL of the possible choices that we may decide. He foresees into the future with ALL of the possibilities.
WOW, your questions about past knowledge and present knowledge are interesting!
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 9/9/2001 7:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Yankee,
great post. 'cept you could have put some spaces in there, sheesh, have mercy on us old people that don't see so well. 
Here's the part I like:
quote:
Yankee: I believe that our omnipotent God is capable of foreseeing into next week without foreseeing into tomorrow
very interesting
-S
Will the birds they put in cages ever ride upon the wind? Will the children life outrages ever learn to love again? –Notre dame de Paris | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/9/2001 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Yankee, good questions. I'll make three points.
1. Everyone has to decide what passages in the Bible to take literally or figuratively. Everyone. Because openness proponents take one class of Scripture literally that traditionalist don't take literally, many traditionalist assume we must take everything in the Bible literally, and we are inconsistent when we do not. (Bruce Ware makes this point several times in his anti-openness book, The Lesser Glory of God). But openness people could just as easily level this charge against traditionalist. If (for example) one accepts that the Bible is speaking literally when it says "God so loved the world he gave his only begotten Son," should they not accept that God literally changes his mind, or forgets the past? My point is that, on this issue, we are all in the same boat.
The question is why should we take a certain passage figurative rather than literal? The reasons traditionalist give for interpreting all the passages suggesting that the future is partially open in my mind are not compelling.
So, when it comes to God "not remembering" our past sins, an openness person could interprete this figuratively as easily as a traditionalist, and for the exact same reasons. Having said that, I see no reason why God couldn't literally decide to erase from his knowledge something in the past if he wanted to.
2. I do not see that the statements "Now I know that you fear me" suggest that God doesn't know all present realities. It just means that God knew that the subject, having passed the test, reverently feared God. His character wasn't solidified in this fashion until after the test, which, Scripture tells us, is precisely why God gave the test. What else could God say? If he spoke in the past tense or future tense, the stated purpose of the test would be undermined. (That is, if God already knew the person reverently feared him, why test him to find this out. And if the reverent fear was yet in the future, the test accomplished nothing. )
3. I'm not sure your view of God's foreknowledge is coherent Yankee. It's one thing for God to know a past deed, and then choose to erase it from his memory (if indeed that is to be taken literally). It's quite another thing for God to choose not to know a future reality -- unless he first knew it. You can only unknow something you first know.
If this is your view you'd have to say that God has exhaustively definite foreknowledge, and then chooses NOT to have it.
This raises a lot of problems, and, so far as I can see, solves none. For one thing, how does God choosing NOT to know something he already knows protect human freedom. The definiteness of one's future action is still there before they choose it, and that fact that God would decide to close his eyes toward it doesn't make it any less definite. Freedom requires open possibilities for agents to choose between. If a future act is definite before it is chosen, then whether God knows it or not, there is no real freedom.
Hope this answers your questions. If not, give it another go.
Later
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
trosie
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550
| Posted 9/9/2001 9:03 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Doc: Hi Yankee, good questions. I'll make three points
Me thinks that the Doc is starting to respond in the THREES mode! 
Purposely or not WHO KNOWS?!
Interesting stuff!
trosie
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/9/2001 9:32 PM (GMT -6) | | I didn't notice that. This either further proves the dominance of threeness in our minds or that I have morphed into an incurable threeness mindset. (If you don't know what we're talking about, check out the Threefold Structure of Reality thread).
Now Trosie,
GO TO BED!!!
DOC
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/10/2001 4:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Very observent Joemo0re. But alas, I've already posted 12 posts since yesterday because, clearly, I'm obsessed on threeenss (check out the threeness site) and I have no life! / Well,okay, I'm a professor and pastor and I write a bit and read alot and spent almost every evening with my wife (except this one cuz she's reading) and I 'm running a marathon with my daughter in four weeks -- but beyond that, its obvious, I have no life, which is why I can afford the luxury of interacting with bright folk on this web site!!!!
especially at 3 in the morning!!!
Love ya'll
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
|
yankee551
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 9/12/2001 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Mr. Boyd,
Thank you for your response to my questions. Here are my three responses to your three responses.
RESPONSE# 1
I do indeed tend to be quite literal in my interpretation of the scriptures; however,
there are some passages that even I interpret figuratively like for example the
statements the Lord made concerning the bread and the wine. By the way,I do have a copy of
Mr. Ware's book.
RESPONSE# 2
I have no argument with the belief that God knew perfectly well of Abraham's past tense
reverent fear of God before having him tested. It just seems to me that God used the test
as His choice of means for determining the status of Abraham's present tense reverent
fear.
RESPONSE# 3
Long before I ever first wrote to you I realized that in order for anything to not be
predestined by God's foreknowledge there must never have ever been a time in all of
eternity past when God did have definite foreknowledge of it. I realized that it was still
predestined as absolute by the previous knowledge God possessed. I prefer to speak in
terms of God "refraining" from foreknowing rather than "choosing" to not foreknow. When I
speak of God as not knowing what my choices will be tomorrow and yet still knowing what my
choices will be next week I am assuming that by God's "refraining" that there has never
ever in all of eternity past been a time when He did know what my tomorrow choices will
be. In other words, He has refrained ever since eternity past. As for my choices next
week, He either foreknows them as a result of His foreordaining them or as the result of
simply foreseeing into my next week without foreseeing into my tomorrow if this is what
He wills to do.
A FEW MORE QUESTIONS,
Calvin believed that everything that God foreknew was foreknown as a result of His foreordaining it. God foreordained everything and therefore as a result of it He foreknew everything. Wesley believed that God had the power to foresee into the future and foresee even those things which He did not foreordain. These things that were not foreordained still became predestined as definite by the power of God's foreseeing them. Mr. Boyd, would I be correct in assuming that according to your beliefs the only parts of the future that God foreknows as definite are those parts that He first foreordained? If this is so then wouldn't our futures be wide open? It seems to me (If I remember right) that in your book (God of the Possible) you were saying that the future is only partly open and not wide open. Thanks for reading this letter and any response you might have.
Sincerly,
Yankee
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Bob Hill
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98
| Posted 9/19/2001 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Yankee,
We see a number of portions of Scripture where God determines something to happen. In Isa 46, we see that God brings to pass the things He declares. Isa 46:10-11 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, “My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure, 11 Calling a bird of prey from the east, The man who executes My counsel, from a far country. Indeed I have spoken it; I will also bring it to pass. I have purposed it; I will also do it.”
This is one of the reasons our salvation is secure. We as the body of Christ have been predestined to be holy and blameless before Him. Eph 1:11,12 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, 12 that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
Safe in Christ,
Bob Hill
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 9/22/2001 10:54 AM (GMT -6) | | To what Bob said I would only add
a) God foreknows as definite whatever IS definite and knows as possible whatever IS possible, for his knowledge always perfectly corresponds to reality. Now future events may be DEFINITE (viz. no longer possibly one way OR another) because i) God decided to resolve them or ii) past and present circumstances have resolved them. So, not EVERYTHING that is definite about the future is due to God's making it so.
b) Does this mean that our future is WIDE OPEN? Why think this? God had set the parameters of our freedom however wide or narrow he chooses. And even within these predetermined paramenters he can orchestrate whatever future definite realities he wishes.
Good questions.
Blessings
Doc
"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:58 AM (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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|