 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > Open View and Middle Knowledge/Molinsim | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
archive
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 516
| Posted 6/27/2001 3:29 AM (GMT -6) |   | Message
Lee-Eddy
11/30/00 1:11 AM
Open View and Middle Knowledge/Molinism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All,
I thought I'd move this topic up from its current seat at the bottom of the 'historical question of openness' thread to its very own place. A nice little place, too. Very nice, room for many responses.
Just what is the connection and overlaps between Molinism/Middle Knowledge and the Open View? I read John Sander's brief discussion of Middle Knowledge in "God Who Risks" again - but it wasn't quite enough for me. Just what does God know according to the Molinist view? And how can some Molinists be determinists and some non-determinists? Isn't a non-determinist Molinist just a hair away from being an Open View believer?
It seems that Middle Knowledge is making a bit of a comeback as the Open View becomes more well-known. It somehow appears more acceptable than its lesser-liked brother, the Open View? William Lane Craig speaks much of it (and will defend it in the upcoming Four Views book, I see - that should be a good one!) I haven't found much web info on it, though. Anyone have any pointers to more info?
Greg - you should know that setting a few stray sentences at the bottom of a post is a recipe for... for... a whole new post!
Thanks,
Lee
Posted Originally From: Open Theism Information Site
GregBoyd
12/01/00 5:29 PM
RE: Open View and Middle Knowledge/Molinism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Lee, Great Question. I'm actually working on this very question as I prepare my response to Bill Craig's essay in the forthcoming *Four Views on Divine Foreknowledge.* I'll briefly outline the Molinist view (I) what's problematic with this view (II) and how the Open view fixes these problems (III).
I) The Molinist view is the view that God possesses "middle knowledge." To oversimplify grossly, this view is the view that God not only knows what WILL happen, but what WOULD HAVE happened in every other "possible world." He knows from all eternity what Lee WILL do, and what Lee WOULD DO in every other conceivable circumstance. With this "middle knowledge" -- knowledge of counterfactuals (x WOULD DO y in situation z) God unilaterally chooses which possible world to actualize.
II) There are three problems with this view.
1) Nothing accounts for the eternal facticity or settledness of being. All that will be and would be is eternally settled -- viz. it is a fact that it shall be, and would be, one way, and not another. Yet GOD didn't cause this facticity (Molinists are not determinists) and FREE AGENTS didn't cause this facticity, for we don't exist from eternity. The facticity is just there, without a cause or sufficient reason, from all eternity.
2) The Middle Knowlege view has trouble accounting for libertarian freedom (viz. freedom to choose between alternatives). If what I WILL do and what I WOULD do in every possible situation is settled from all eternity, how can I genuinely have the power to choose between alternatives right now?
3) The middle knowledge view, like all versions of classical theism, has trouble explaining the many passages where God appears NOT to know with certainty what WILL or WOULD happen. He speaks of the future in terms of "ifs" and "perhaps" and "maybe." He experiences surprise and disappointment. He changes his mind and expresses regret. [on all this, see God of the Possible]. Molinists try to explain all this away as anthropomorphic, but this move simply does not work. It is arbitrary and depletes these passages of any coherent meaning.
III) The Open view modifies the Molinist view in one crucial respect. I cannot speak for other Open theists, but I would concede that God DOES possess counterfactual knowledge. From all eternity he knows whether its true or false that "x WOULD DO y in situation z." The problem with Molinism, and ALL traditional views of foreknowledge, is that they LIMIT GOD's omniscience by not conceding that God not only knows COUNTERFACTUALS: God also knows SUBJUNCTIVES. From all eternity God knows whether its true or false that "x MIGHT DO y in situation z." Note the distinction between "WOULD DO" and "MIGHT DO." IF God knows that "x MIGHT DO y in situation z," than God knows its FALSE that "x WOUlD DO y in situation z." "Would" implies settledness: the issue is not open (which is why this views runs into problems with free will). "Might" does not imply settledness. Yet, unless one wants to argue that it is NEVER true that a free agent MIGHT act one way or another, than one has to say that every subjunctive statement has an eternal truth value, and thus that God would KNOW the truth value of all subjunctive statements.
I thus believe that the Open view can be accurately labelled "Neo-Molinism." It simply holds that Molinism arbitrarilly limited God's knowledge to counterfactuals. Hence, instead of God choosing ONE world to be actualized from among all possible worlds, the Neo-Molinist holds that God chooses one SET of possible worlds -- a world that includes subjunctives -- to be actualized. God sovereignly chooses the set of possible worlds, and then sovereignly grants free agents the power to have a role in deciding which ONE world from among this set gets actualized.
I don't have time to develop this further here. It will be coming out in *Four Views of Divine Foreknowledge* (IVP) as well as in a future article and in my forthcoming *Satan and the Problem of Evil* (IVP). But I'll just submit here that if you think it through, the Neo-Molinist view avoids 1) the problem of an eternally uncaused facticity to all things, future and counterfactual; 2) the problem of squaring libertarian freedom with this eternal facticity; and 3) the problem of squaring God's foreknowledge with all "motif of future openness" found in the Bible [e.g. where God speaks in terms of maybes, ifs, perhaps, etc....]. With classical Molinism, Neo-Molinism can effectively account for the degree of control God displays in biblical history (what agents WOULD do in various situations}. But in contrast to classical Molinism, Neo-Molinism can effectively account for the degree of openness displayed in Scripture (what agents MIGHT do in various situations). e.g. This view alone renders it intelligible how Jesus can know that Peter will deny him while Yahweh can only tell Ezekiel that the people MIGHT listen to him (Ezek 12:3).
In a word, what all this shows, I believe, is that the Open view has all the advantages of classical Molinism while avoiding its three major problems. Anyone out there want to give some feedback?
Greg
ps. Sorry if this was a bit "technical." The subject matter requires it. Blame it on Lee.
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/01/00 7:37 PM
RE: Open View and Middle Knowledge/Molinism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it just me, or does the molinist view strike anyone else as strained? (No offense, Lee-Eddy and GregBoyd--your comments in this thread are among the more intelligible I've read on middle knowledge.)
Molinism is the brainchild of Jesuits and the plaything of analytic philosophers and it is not very accessible to more intuitive types. I think referring to the open view as neo-molinism outside the context of a discussion of middle knowledge obscurs one of the open view's greatest strengths--its accessibility/applicability to everyday people.
Is there a biblical basis for molinism?
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/02/00 12:06 AM
RE: RE: Open View and Middle Knowledge/Molinism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point well taken, Ghost-Dog-Girl. Yet I wouldn't want to LIMIT the open view to its lay-person packaging. It needs to be, and can be, defended at the most sophisticated intellectual level. Now, about the foundation of Middle Knowledge, there is SOME evidence that God knows counterfactuals in Scripture (Craig gives some examples of God saying "x would have done y in situation z") but its pretty meager. It is rooted more on the philosophical assumption that God knows the truth value of all propositions. He thus eternally knows the truth value of all counterfactual propositions ("x would do y in situation z."). My only supplimentation to this is that subjunctive propositions also have truth values that God must eternally know.
Later DGD. I deeply appreciate all your input on this discussion board.
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Proverbs23_23
12/02/00 8:18 AM
RE: Open View and Middle Knowledge/Molinism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee, thank you for moving my question up, and for making it more legible I am SO interested in this information!
Greg, Thank you very much for your post here!! It has helped. Would you answer one more question for me? WHEN are these books going to be available? Any idea? I have been eagerly waiting for "Satan and the Problem of Evil" to come out, (since reading "God at War"), and look forward to the "Four Views of Divine Foreknowledge".
*Proverbs 23_23*
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/02/00 11:29 AM
Eureka?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Room,
Welcome and Kudos to all the new people! Well, it looks like the old adage is true. You DO learn something new everyday. I had not possessed a very clear conception of what Molinism (or middle knowledge) meant before. But the more and more I'm looking your discussions, it seems to suit me pretty well. As a matter of fact, my personal view and Molinism/middle knowledge view might fit each other VERY well.
Dr. Boyd says:
"1)The Molinist view is the view that God possesses "middle knowledge." To oversimplify grossly, this view is the view that God not only knows what WILL happen, but what WOULD HAVE happened in every other "possible world." He knows from all eternity what Lee WILL do, and what Lee WOULD DO in every other conceivable circumstance. With this "middle knowledge" -- knowledge of counterfactuals (x WOULD DO y in situation z) God unilaterally chooses which possible world to actualize."
Mephi:
Oh, my stars and garters. Is my view similar to this or what? I think it's almost a dead ringer for what I'd been talking about for a while now. (All of you who had been reading some of my posts can probably notice the similarities in thought.) I guess there really IS nothing new under the sun. LOL
But, then Molinism seems to come under 3 problems, asserted by Dr. Boyd.:
1) Nothing accounts for the eternal facticity or settledness of being.
2) The Middle Knowlege view has trouble accounting for libertarian freedom.
3) The middle knowledge view, like all versions of classical theism, has trouble explaining the many passages where God appears NOT to know with certainty what WILL or WOULD happen.
Mephi:
Hmmmm...maybe the crux of the problem is in #3
"...like all versions of classical theism,..."
What if we don't USE the presuppositions of classical theism? What if we take the essence of the Molinism position, and posit a God in time? Seems to me that would eliminate about 80% of the problem right there. Next, let's say we get some hard discussion on certain points, among which would be:
1) the diferrence between free will and power of volition
2) the logical plausibility of libertarian freedom and indeterminism
3) human agency and self-efficacy
4) determinism as DISTINGUISHED from fatalism
5) the implications of exhaustive knowledge of any present state
It would seem that we would have a match made in heaven, philosophically and theologically speaking. It is my contention that, once these issues are clarified, the 3 problems mentioned by Dr. Boyd would be reasonably answered in a cogent fashion.
Are there any other similiarities between Molinism and me? Bear with the quotes...
Dr. Boyd:
"ps. Sorry if this was a bit "technical." The subject matter requires it."
G-D-G (My favorite home girl ):
Molinism is the brainchild of Jesuits and the plaything of analytic philosophers and it is not very accessible to more intuitive types. I think referring to the open view as neo-molinism outside the context of a discussion of middle knowledge obscurs one of the open view's GREATEST STRENGTHS--It's ACCESSIBILITY/APPLICABILITY TO EVERYDAY PEOPLE." (Emphasis mine)
Hmmm...well, now. Molinism and my view have more in common than I ever could have anticipated. Here's something I said a LONG time ago. From the 11/02/00 post under "Amigos:
"I find this situation very frustrating...What I mean is that in order to understand a lot of my argumentation, lots of technical language and very involved concepts are unavoidable. Agency, determinism, soft determinism, fatalism, necessary and sufficient causation, meliorism, etc. I'm NOT blaming anyone for having a hard time understanding my terms. That would be condescending and silly. These terms are not generally known terms. Some of them are philosophical and psychological terms that are quite technical, to be honest. But understand my concern. It doesn't really matter how well put together argumentation is, if it's incomprehensible to a given audience. I'm not saying that my argumentation is hole-proof, by any stretch of the imagination. But what matters a powerful argument in which people get lost trying to understand..."
[HERE'S the kicker!]
"On the other hand, statements made for the opposition (which can at times be caricatures) can be more amply understood and get more credence BECAUSE they are more readily understood."
Mephi:
I appreciate Dr. Boyd's reply to G-D-G's comment, as far as limiting the open view to "lay-person packaging" only. Obviously, he knows that every good view must have a sound theoretical basis on which to it is formulated. But at the same time, I hope that he notes G-D-G's sincerity about what she actually said. Bottom line: Many of the readers of this debate ARE thinking this way. And it sucks to be the one with the more complex, convoluted sounding answers...no matter how important those answers may be. Ask any philosophy professor who legitimately tries to argue against epistemological and moral relativism on some of our college campuses.
Anyways, I'd like to thank all you guys. You have shown me the light. I think I will definitely look more heavily into Molinism and middle knowledge. With some modifications to it, who knows what may happen? LOL
Again, to all new persons, a warm-hearted welcome!
With much gratitude,
Mephi2K
PS: Anybody got William Lane Craig's phone number? hehe
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/02/00 3:23 PM
RE: RE: Open View and Middle Knowledge/Molinism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To Prov. 23. Satan and the Problem of Evil should be available August 2001. The Four Views book probably September.
Blessings
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/02/00 3:33 PM
RE: Eureka?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice to here from you Mephi ol boy. The view you espoused last month is definitely close to Molinism, except that Molinists have always embraced libertarian freedom. Indeed, one of the "selling points" of the position was that you could (they argued) affirm libertarian freedom while also granting God almost -- ALMOST -- unconditional control. Many Molinists (including W.L.Craig) have also affirmed that God is "in time" (viz. NOT in atemporal eternity).
I don't at all see how affirming God "in time" helps avoid the 3 problems I postulated re: "middle knowledge." What avoids the 3 problems is including subjunctives (x might do y in situation z) in God's middle knowledge. Look, subjunctive propositions are either true or false, and eternally so. If God is all knowing -- and God most certainly is -- than God must know the truth value of subjunctive propositions. Hence, part of the reality that God eternally knows is what agent x MIGHT do y in situation z.
Voila! No eternal facticity. No problem with freedom. No problem with all the subjunctives spoken by God in Scripture. Theological elegance at its max! You buy?
later
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
ghost-dog-girl
12/02/00 6:00 PM
Keeping it real
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mephi and Greg, thanks for your resonses. I agree whole-heartedly that the open view should not be limited to "lay-person packaging." I was just alarmed at the thought of the open view being usurped by a heading (i.e. neo-molinism) that recalled a subject that I have taken up many times (i.e. middle knowledge), only to become instantly bored. No offense to those of you who are excited about this--knock yourselves out! It's exciting--and important to the overall viability and strength of the view--to see you make the connections you are making in this discussion. And Mephi, even if you do become a molinist fan, we will always have comics in common. Cheers, GDG
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
Mephi2K
12/03/00 5:36 PM
Not Buying Just Yet...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good to hear from you,too, Doc.
On NEO-MOLINISM
Dr. Boyd states:
I thus believe that the Open view can be accurately labelled "Neo-Molinism." It simply holds that Molinism arbitrarilly limited God's knowledge to counterfactuals. Hence, instead of God choosing ONE world to be actualized from among all possible worlds, the Neo-Molinist holds that God chooses one SET of possible worlds -- a world that includes subjunctives -- to be actualized. God sovereignly chooses the set of possible worlds, and then sovereignly grants free agents the power to have a role in deciding which ONE world from among this set gets actualized.
Mephi:
Go back, ladies and gentleman. Back in your minds to the days of elementary school. Remember those books we used to LOVE to read? Yes, I mean the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" series. Personally, I owned dozens of them. I used to love the way I felt a genuine sense of loss when I made a bad choice and get killed. Or the exhilaration of coming to a good end, knowing I had made some good decisions. Anyways, when I really thought on Neo-Molininism, I begin to think of these books. Be honest. Aren't the concepts quite similar? The author writes a story that has predetermined ends, yet allows the reader oppotunities to choose at various points of the story to find out which ONE resolution that particular reader actualizes. Hmmm...
Now let's say that God would be analogous to the author, and WE would be analogous to the reader. Now what are some things I note?
1) The reader's freedom is limited, PER the author's allowances. The reader can't just make up any ending, but has to follow within the constraints given by the author.
2) The author is still in ultimate control over what happens in the story. The reader only goes where the author ultimately WANTS the reader to go, even if the particular choices that lead to that particular end are less than ideal. (Remember the author designed the ends. Therefore, he "willed" those ends, as it were)
3) The author had to take in account some type of determinism (cause and effect) thought to produce the storyline.
I think this goes well with Dr. Boyd's Sixth Thesis for Warfare Worldview:
"6. Power to Influence is Finite: God’s creatures are finite. Although their freedom cannot be revoked, it can be thought of as “probational.” *******The scope and duration of their freedom is conditioned by many variables and ultimately determined by God’s will.********* The warfare between God and creatures who choose to use their freedom for evil is not eternal. Christ will vanquish his enemies in the end and creatures will be free to participate in the triune love of God at last." (Emphasis mine)
I dig this, Doc. As a matter of fact, I'm really feeling this. Probably because this is the metaphysical foundation of what I believe to be true. Earlier statement of mine:
"So what could God do if he couldn't create an open world, you ask? The very thing that I think he DID do. He created a melioristic universe where sentient agents (human and otherwise) have a reciprocally determining relationship with their environments. In other words, they act upon their environments AND their environments act upon them in a never-ending interpenetrating cycle. The agents are able to be 'self-determining' beings in the fact that they are able to actualize their OWN futures (i.e. self-efficacy and causality exists whereas fatalism is soundly negated) Because of the framework of reality, the decisions of the agents are TRUE decisions made from their TRUE selves. However, because of God's knowledge of self and the potential realities, these decisions were predictable from the creative event, and thus God has exhaustive knowledge."
Example:
He chose to actualize a world that has Mephi in it per his eternal plan. This automatically entails him whittling down the amount of nigh-infinite possible actualities that can result from the interaction of events and agents to a SET of the same that includes me. And he further whittled THAT set down by how many of those potential realities has me being my particular ethnicity, and my sex, and so on..and so on.
Surprise, surprise, Doc. It seems we may have more in common than I expected. So, what is the big distinction between you and me? A problem comes up when the author knows any reader R and her environment exhaustively. (We will assume that Reader R can only read through one time and make decisions one time without cheating) The author would then be completely able to predict what choices that said reader would make upon R's reading the book. Thus, the author, though having created a story where R's volitional power is asserted, still KNOWS in advance what ending she will come to and what choices she will have made to come to that ending. In other words, though there are numerous ends possible, the author knows which ONE that Reader R will choose of her OWN volition!
In keeping with the analogy here, you would, most likely, say this:
"The author genuinely does NOT know what choices R will make at those points of decision, even though he may know R extensively. He doesn't know until the choices are actually made by R. The choices that R makes are novel to the author, though the author knows that there are only so many endings. R eventually ends up in one of the author's endings anyway."
I just don't think that makes much sense. I would say this:
"The author does know what choices R will make at those points of decision, BECAUSE he knows R extensively. Thus, the author effectively knows what ending Reader R will end up actualizing, even though it is truly Reader R that is making the decisions."
ON SUBJUNCTIVES
I agree with your positing subjuctives in the model. However, I'd like to add that I don't think that adding the subjunctives to produce Neo-Molinism here really makes much of a difference, given God's knowledge. Lemme show you what I mean...
X will do Y in situation Z (counterfactuals)
X might do Y in situation Z (subjunctives)
Personally, I find these statements quite incomplete, and not able to deal with all the factors involved. It is the inadequacy of the statements themselves that enable the introduction of the subjunctives a sense of superiority that, when critically analyzed, is more apparent than real.
Attempt on a Molinist spin:
There exists Agent X. Agent X has a certain height, build, weight, etc. Agent X is also in a certain environmental context (area temperature, structures, etc.) Agent X also has memories and mental dispositions that are unique to Agent X. Given all these statements, we know that at any point in time T where a situation Z may take place, Agent X will only be able to do so many things, due to her physical, mental, and emotional limits. Her potential for thought and action following time=T in situation Z is NOT infinite, but is finite based on the stipulations mentioned above.
(Here's the new statement)
Agent X has the CAPACITY to do actions A-S given the situation Z. (Very important distinction) Due to the personal and environmental makeup of situation Z, taking ALL stimuli bearing upon Agent X into consideration, Agent X WILL do action S when encountering situation Z.
See the difference that makes? Now according to Dr. Boyd's take on Molinism, this is what God would know from eternity past. Knowing the subjunctives is tantamount to knowing everything exhaustively, when every other factor that can be known IS known. (If you don't get this, PLEASE refer to the "squares" model in a past post with the 1s and the 0s)
I say that metaphysically, the Neo-Molinist view of Dr. Boyd may have some merit. But when you think through all the implications, it FUNCTIONALLY operates in the same manner, as if God had planned everything in a pancausal nature. Literally, everything happens according to his ultimate parameters. In other words, God knowingly set everything up to work such that, even though numerous realities have the CAPACITY to emerge, ONE reality would emerge , and that according to his knowledge.
Let me break it down like this: God has planned existence such that agents may use the power of volition according to their OWN choices, and because of God's knowledge, God knows what the end result of every agent will be.
[Digression: Actually, a version of the paradigm directly above can be used to help reconcile Unconditional Election and Conditional Election, as well as the functionality of Christ's sinlessness. Email me for details ]
IN SUM:
In the end, let me say this again: Dr. Boyd, I AGREE WITH YOU as far as your view of including subjunctives. I hold to the melioristic "Choose-Your-Own-Adventure" worldview in some respects. And IF we posited a God who did not have exhaustive knowledge of all free agents who would ever exist or their environments before creation as well as a plan involving them, I would most gladly affirm your Neo-Molinism. However, we do posit an omniscient God, and I have to take what I believe to be the logical conclusions of that. So far, I think Molinism is pretty cool. Eternal facticity is affirmed. Freedom is affirmed. The subjunctives in Scripture are able to be interpreted in a way that is logical, given Christian cosmology and theology.
Warmest regards,
Mephi2K
PS: Brainteaser for Dr Boyd:
God doesn't know what choices that free agents will make until the decisions are actually made, right? It usually takes two people together to procreate to get a baby. Let's say Man A and Woman B can produce Child C, if they have sexual relations and successful gestation. Right now, A and B have just met at time T. If God doesn't know what choices Man A and Woman B will make in the future from time T, how can God know that Child C will even come into existence? How does he know that the relationship will work out? (Remember the lady who thought she heard God about who to marry, Doc? Remember that advice you gave her?) Even if they DO get close enough to have sex and she DOES get pregnant, how does God know that the baby will actually be born? Doesn't this all mean that the very emergence of a given LIFE can be a complete mystery to God? Is God omniscient as to who will be born and who won't be born? How in the world could God know that I, Mephi, WOULD be born in 1974 to my current parents? Maybe God just micromanages a FEW chosen births to completion but leaves all the others to "chance"...hmmm...
Now multiply this enigmatic situation to BILLIONS of people. Whoa.
In short, how far does God's ignorance go?
While you're working on that, some Scripture to meditate on (NIV)...
Jeremiah 1:4-5
The word of the LORD came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
Psalm 139:13-16
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Isaiah 49:1
Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name.
OutKasted....off and up out!
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
GregBoyd
12/05/00 10:30 AM
Mephi and Middle Knowledge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Mephi and co. Meph, have you read *God of the Possible?* I would encourage you to do so if you haven't yet. I actually use the "Choose Your Own Adventure" illustration to model the Open view of the future. That is EXACTLY right (infinitely simplified, of course). God sets the parameters and whatever details God wants to settle ahead of time, and then God empowers people to "fill in the blanks," as it were. The future is partly open, and partly settled. God knows settled reality as settled, counterfactuals as counterfactuals, and (here's the novelty) SUBJUNCTIVES as subjunctives! You seem to agree with all this, yet want to affirm that the future is exhaustively settled. But Meph, if subjunctives are real (x MIGHT do y in situation z, and God knows all of reality as it is, than God knows reality partly as a MIGHT BE. You can't affirm the reality of subjunctives and yet reduce all God's knowledge to a "will be" and a "would be" (counterfactuals).
I would apply this to your brainteaser. I don't know what aspects of "ME" were open and/or settled before my birth. I do know that "I" could have been different -- owning to circumstances outside my control (e.g. different parents) or circumstances within my control (my choices). I am partly defined as a "will be," a "would be" and a "might be." How much of this, if any, God controls I do not pretend to know. Neither do I know how much a person's "might be" can take over their "would be" and "will be" before that person ceases to be that person. This is the metaphysical issue of self-identity, and its tough.
Regarding your passages, I'm wondering why you see a problem between these verses and the Open view. The Lord "knows" (semetic sense of "know" = loves in an intimate way) certain people and calls certain people before they were born. I affirm this, for Scripture teaches it. What I deny is that a) this knowing and calling involved every action the person would ever do; b) this knowing and calling was from eternity past; c) this knowing and calling was determinative in the persons life (viz. it MADE THEM be what God called them to be). God plans and calls many people that refuse him. Only if you read a,b or c INTO the passages do they conflict with the Open view.
Later Meph
Greg
Posted Originally From: Christus Victor Ministries
NaveySealed
12/05/00 12:22 PM
RE: Not Buying Just Yet...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Meph
Does "before you were born" = "before you were conceived"?
I'm thinking of Paul's statement in Gal 1:15. I don't take that passage to mean the same thing as "before I was conceived in my mother's womb". I get the idea that God picks a man AFTER he exists.
Sealed
| | Back to Top | | |
 | Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:48 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 |
|
|