 |
| 
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 3/1/2002 6:11 AM (GMT -6) |   | Greetings! I hope you will find my first discussion topic interesting. In this topic I hope to engage what I am calling two plausible views of divine foreknowledge (FN). By plausible, I am referring to a view that adequately engages both scripture and the philosophical arguments on the issue of FN.
Let me say up-front, it is not my intent to hash over the arguments for and against each possible view. That has been done elsewhere by others. Instead, I will take a synoptical approach to the topic as it stands to date, identifying the view that seems most plausible in its arguments. Then, I will post a reply to this topic that will suggest a second plausible view by making a paradigm shift in thought when looking at some of the classical arguments of the Armininism/Calvinism debate differently than traditionally approached.
In order to adequately engage my second plausible view, I need to first highlight what seem to me to be the key points the various arguments for FN hinge on. I will start with a summary of the key points of the classic Armininist/Calvinist debate, then I will summarize how the Open View (OV) engages those points. This will set the stage for my second post.
It has been said that the logical extreme of both Calvinism and Armininism is heresy. The extreme of Calvinism has human beings nothing more than robots, controlled by God. This denies what the Bible reveals about mankind as having individual wills, which are held accountable for their actions. The extreme of Armininism is that God is held captive by our choice. Except for a few heretics  , people on both sides of the issue have attempted to keep away from these extremes, while attempting to push their opponents toward the logical conclusion (extreme) of their view. The whole issue of FN requires keeping the individual will and God's sovereign will in tension, in light of God's Exhaustive Foreknowledge (EFN). Scripture does this, as evidenced by the two motifs in Greg Boyd's God of the Possible. Not surprising, the FN debate often reduces to philosophical arguments.
Calvinists and Open Theists agree on one point. Philosophically, one must either diminish individual will or lesson God's EFN. The argument goes like this. If God has EFN, then his choices to act or not to act necessarily determine the outcome of future events. Calvinists rightly understand that the individual will cannot be diminished to the point where people are no longer morally responsible for their actions. However, the Calvinist so emphasizes God's sovereign will that individual will becomes next to meaningless. It amounts to the equation:
Infinity
--------- = Infinity
One
As a side note, it is interesting that Paul Helm in his defense of Calvinism in the book Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views (DFN4V), raised the issue of soteriology. The Armininian and Open View both hold the same soteriology, i.e., we say "yes" or "no" to God's offer of salvation, and God does the rest. The Calvinist sees God's primary role in salvation, adds to it the assumption that saying "yes" or "no" to God would be "works", and since we are saved by grace through faith -- both of which come from God -- concludes that mankind's will has nothing to do with salvation. Add to this the Infinite weight of God's sovereign will in light of EFN, you get the doctrine of election, which leads to limited atonement. A Five Point Calvinist once told me that all five points of TULIP go together -- that it is not possible to have 2.5 or 3.5 points. Logically, this is true. There is a tight loop that runs between these presuppositions. In my opinion, Calvinist soteriology carries Calvinism away from what is revealed about individual will, God's will, and salvation in scripture. It is more objectionable than Calvinist views of FN, taken alone. While Calvinism has a logically strong argument, it fails to match up to what is revealed in the whole of scripture, and therefore fails the plausibility test.
The Armininist position attempts to keep the proper tension between individual will and God's sovereign will in light of FN. As such, it is much more consistent with the whole of scripture. Again, there are heretical pitfalls at the extreme, but those can be avoided. However, Arminism philosophically struggles with maintaining the significance of individual will in light of God's sovereign will and His EFN, and thus reduces to the more deterministic Calvinism, which will quickly lead logically to Calvinist soteriology. Ultimately, the Armininist will appeal to "mystery", rather than concede to Calvinism. Attempts have been made to accommodate individual will better, as illustrated by the Molinist view, presented by William Lane Craig in DFN4V. However, it seems to me that in light of EFN, even Molinism must reduce to the more determinist alternative. So, I conclude that Armininism has traditionally failed to address the philosophical arguments, and thus fails the plausibility test. However, failing to have a philosophical argument, but having a strong scriptural argument puts Armininism in a better position than Calvinism, IMO.
Enter Open Theism. As noted earlier, we need to either deminish individual will or lesson EFN. The OV takes the bold step of considering the latter option. What if the future is not settled? Comosologically, the OV makes a distinction between the mathematical construct of time (which God can transcend), and the idea of sequence. Sequence deals with the order of events. The past is absolutely and finally settled. The future does not yet exist, though is largely determined by the physical conditions of the world, individual choices, and God's sovereign will. It is in the realm of the present that all the action takes place. The idea of God experiencing sequence is not as strange as you might first think. For example, logically, God created the world, before he created mankind, which was before the fall, which was before the first coming of Christ, which is before the second coming of Christ. There is an inherent sequence both we and God interact with. As with the other views of FN, the OV is explained and defended elsewhere. I only note here that the OV engages the whole of scripture, as does Armininism, and it also deals well with the philosophical arguments. In this way, a strong case for plausibility can be made.
That said, I think there are two areas of weakness in the OV. First, in trying to deal with God's knowledge of specific events involving choices of individuals it falls back on God's sovereign will determining the events, in the event that the exact set of individual choices are not available. While this solution is viable in a large number of the cases, the OV's case remains weak in this area. Sometimes, scripture seems to be communicating information that is primarily involved with God's knowledge, rather than God's will. To revert to determinism is not out of the question, but is grates against our instincts about individual will, and perhaps misses the point of God "knowing" vs God "determining."
The other area OV is potentially exposed has to do with science. My own cursory review of scientific thought about time and the future was enough to conclude that science does not have the answers regarding the nature of the future. However, if science were to prove the possibility of time travel (something I would hope would not happen in order to avoid chaos), then the OV would collapse. If people can travel to the future, then certainly God can know the future. All said, these two points are only potential weak spots in the OV. For now, they do not deminish its plausibility, IMHO. However, proponents of the OV will need to continue to review their model, and I am sure opponents will do their best to pick it apart. 
This concludes my introductory post. My next post, which will identify a second plausible view of FN will be available soon.
Yours in Christ,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
Edited by - Winghead on 03/01/2002 7:21:00 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:26 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|