 |
| 
gershom
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 8/15/2004 7:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Hi everybody- I am just starting to study the differing views on foreknowledge etc. and am intrigued with both the open view and the molinist account of foreknowledge.
I know this forum is more open view oriented than other views, but it seems like people here are pretty well versed so maybe somebody can help me understand some things about the other views.
One of the main objections I hear to the molinist account is the question of how God can know prior to the creation decree the "counterfactuals" of creaturely free acts. I agree with open view and other critics that this seems like a sticky issue!
But my question is, why isn't this issue just as much a problem for the simple foreknowledge view? If God cannot know the free acts of his creation unless that creation is already decreed, then wouldn't this logically leave God without the ability to make an informed decision as to whether or not he would even create the world, if he couldn't know how it would turn out until he had already decreed it's creation? How does this "simple foreknowledge" offer God any useful information for determining how he will interact with his creation if he can only know how his creation will respond in the one scenario which inevitably comes to pass, but does not know what would have come to pass in a different possible world had he acted differently?
To me it seems this criticism of molinism is equally weighty against the simple foreknowledge view- in fact it's very difficult for me to understand how one can avoid recognizing the need for middle knowledge if god's foreknowledge is in any sense useful as a basis for determining how he will interact with his creation. Are there any simple foreknowledge advocates out there, or just anybody who understands this better than me?
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Bobber
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 199
| Posted 8/16/2004 2:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Well here's my position on the matter although many people think im nuts. Why I don't know why....but then again somebody who is nuts wouldn't know right? 
Anyway the various things that OV state are somewhat correct but the things that classical theism state are also correct. God doesn't know all the future but then again he does know it or comes to know it, or came to know it, [from whatever vantage point you're looking at it] through time travel of information. This allows for total free will of man but also allows God to see the end from the beginning, and to choose us as the elect by foreknowledge. Some would argue that if God came to know or does know all the future that would mean we really don't have freedom of will but as such would not be true of us [if we could go back in time and know what you did at a certain point and no one could say that we're controlling your decisions] then neither should it be said of God as well....Have A Good Day  | | Back to Top | | |
|
gershom
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 13
| Posted 8/16/2004 5:45 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Bobber
God doesn't know all the future but then again he does know it or comes to know it, or came to know it, [from whatever vantage point you're looking at it] through time travel of information. This allows for total free will of man but also allows God to see the end from the beginning, and to choose us as the elect by foreknowledge. Some would argue that if God came to know or does know all the future that would mean we really don't have freedom of will but as such would not be true of us ... then neither should it be said of God as well...
I guess my question is not so much with the implications for free will, but if God knows the future via, as you put it, "time travel of information"- then he could only know the one future which actually comes to pass- not any possible future, including those which don't come to pass, as is suggested by the 'middle knowledge' view.
But how does this information at all help inform God's divine activity? How could he know whether it is better to do "A" or to do "B" (based on his foreknowledge) if he only has foreknowledge of the results of whichever one he is definitely going to choose? If he chooses "A", then he couldn't know how people would have responded if he had chosen "B" instead- so how could he choose between the two? It seems to me that simple foreknowledge (by time travel of information or whatever) is no help in this case, and it's hard for me to see how one can at all avoid the necessity of middle knowledge if foreknowledge is to be at all useful in informing God's activity.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2004 5:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Good instincts gershom. Bobber's time travel view is, like all time travel scenarios, science fiction fantasy.
You're right to wonder just what providential advantage God would gain from simple foreknowledge. The answer is God would gain no providential advantage whatsoever. He couldn't DO anything with such knowledge. Remember Casandra? There ya go.
If you would like to attend the funeral services for Bobber's time travel view, please find it here:
http://www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3339&whichpage=1
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/16/2004 6:26 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Good instincts gershom. Bobber's time travel view is, like all time travel scenarios, science fiction fantasy.
You're right to wonder just what providential advantage God would gain from simple foreknowledge. The answer is God would gain no providential advantage whatsoever. He couldn't DO anything with such knowledge. Remember Casandra? There ya go.
Tom
Tom,
I may have forgotten details of Greek mythology, but I'm at a loss with your mention of Cassandra in this context. Cassandra, as I recall, Apollo gave Cassandra power to prophesy, but because she would not accept him as a lover, Apollo changed her blessing to a curse, causing her prophecies never to be believed. How does this correlate to your comments about God not being providentially advantaged by having simple foreknowledge? Cassandra's situation seems quite different.
Just wondering,
Gerry | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2004 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Gerry-
I did this in High School, a looong time ago for me too! But it was my understanding that part of Cassandra's curse was not being able to do anything to avoid the events she prophesied. Anyhow, my objection to simple foreknowlede is basically the Calvinist's objection. Such knowledge is gained by God in one timeless moment (pardon the pun). Since simple knowledge is conditioned by the events themselves and is (commonly believed to be) timeless, it provides God no advantage. Since simply foreknown events are already by definition the RESULT of whatever was done (by God or anyone else) to influence them, such knowledge comes to God too late (logically speaking) to ALSO be the BASIS of actions taken to influence outcomes.
In this case theological determinists are right on! Simple foreknowledge is providentially useless. Theologically it's utter dead weight.
If Cassandra isn't a way to get a handle on this, fine.
Hope I haven't morphed into yet another version of open theism. 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Gerry Attrick
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 114
| Posted 8/16/2004 7:16 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Gerry-
I did this in High School, a looong time ago for me too! But it was my understanding that part of Cassandra's curse was not being able to do anything to avoid the events she prophesied. Anyhow, my objection to simple foreknowlede is basically the Calvinist's objection. Such knowledge is gained by God in one timeless moment (pardon the pun). Since simple knowledge is conditioned by the events themselves and is (commonly believed to be) timeless, it provides God no advantage since it comes to God too late (logically speaking) to also be the BASIS of actions taken to bring about or prevent the events in question. Simply foreknown events are already by definition the RESULT of whatever was done (by God or anyone else) to influence them. Such knowledge cannot ALSO become the basis of actions taken to influence the events in question. In this case theological determinists are right on: simple foreknowledge is providentially useless. Theologically it's utter dead weight.
If Cassandra isn't a way to get a handle on this, fine.
Tom
Tom,
Thanks. Whether Cassandra fits is of little consequence. What is consequential is the fact that open theism has issued a deathblow to the Arminian belief in simple foreknowledge. What amazes me is that few Arminians seem to grasp the devastating argument open theists have made against simple foreknowledge. In fact, what is particularly interesting is that a theologian such as Roger Olson (former colleague of Greg Boyd) fails to recognize (at least publicly) that open theists have done to Arminianism's simple foreknowledge far greater injury than Calvinism has ever inflicted. Instead, Roger Olson has whined repeatedly that the Calvinists' real target, in the dispute over open theism, has been Arminianism. In reality, open theism has done nothing to injure Calvinism per se but has done severe injury to Arminianism. What is curious about open theism is its penchant to hijack selectively the distinctive feature of Calvinism to offer reasonably credible explanations of various biblical passages especially in distinction from Arminian simple foreknowledge. For example, this is evident in Greg Boyd's attempted explanation of Romans 8:29 (in God of the Possible).
Gerry
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/16/2004 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Gerry-
I haven't followed the public debate a whole lot. I wouldn't say it's open theism that has issued the deathblow to simple foreknowledge. Others have been saying the same thing about simple foreknowledge for a while as well. Open theists just agree.
Peace,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:24 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 |
|
|