 |
| 
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 10/10/2005 10:05 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
Check this out.
Comments please. My Calvinist friends are not buying.  I wonder what my Open Theist acquaintances think? 
Regards
Paul M. Blackmore
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/11/2005 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Didn't read it all, Paul, but given your literal understanding of the 144,000, I don't know how to find fault with them. 
Plus, when philber asks, "So do you believe in the classical view of God's omniscience?" you ought to be answering "yes" not "no." When you explain yourself later you point out that God's foreknowledge is not exhausively definite, that's all. But that doesn't rule out an orthodox DEFINTION of 'omniscience'. It rules out the classical understanding of THE WORLD, yes, but not of OMNISCIENCE per se. Omniscience remains what it always has been: God knows all truths. There's not a single truth anywhere at any time that God doesn't know. So you should have stuck it back to phliber and asked him for his 'defintion' of omniscience. Make him prove an open theist can'be believe, flat out, that "God knows all truths." He can't. They just read their cosmology and their view of providence right INTO the definition of the word "omniscience." Can't do that.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/11/2005 7:54:36 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/11/2005 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: And in my view the whole 'libertarian' project was created by God for soteriological reasons, nothing else.
Jeff: My view is that the "libertarian" project was created with the ORIGINAL INTENT in mind. As I understand Genesis, God never intended a Fall at all. As I understand it, both Satan AND humans fell AFTER their creation during the creation week. Consequently, the whole project went badly awry right off the bat. Had it not done so, it may be that SOME humans could have died from eating of the forbidden tree without undoing the whole project. The earth would have eventually been "FILLED" according to the plan, anyway. But when the head angel and BOTH EXISTING humans fell, it pretty much terminated the possibility of the original plan to work.
So while I believe that LFW was clearly related to the MAINTAINING of life in the originally intended order, I would not conclude that God's alternative soteriological plans were necessarily dependent on LFW. Clearly, though, sanctification ONLY makes sense in light of LFW. And as I've said before, my reasons for believing in an effectual call are 1) there are those like C.S. Lewis who are reluctant converts at first, and 2) the relevant passages seem to be more easily and parsimoniously explained on that hypothesis.
And while scripture says that all who seek Him will find Him, it also says that NONE seek Him (at Paul's writing, anyway) and that He is found of those who did NOT seek Him. Thus, LFW will be honored by God when and if it is properly exercised.
Tom: Were I to abandon LFW with respect to salvation and still be able to view the choice for salvation as a personal and responsible one, heck, I'd have little reason for just embracing the whole deterministic worldview.
Jeff: I agree that an act void of LFW is not a "responsible" one. Only God is responsible for any effectual call.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/11/2005 7:43:04 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 10/11/2005 4:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you Tom. Thank you Jeff for your interest. The literal 144,000 was what brought me to my current view, although my case for the "Unified view" is not dependent upon that literal fact. Thanks for your thoughtful comments as well.
The Open-view which I have a great deal of sympathy for, seems incompatible with a non-literal take on things future. So much of the "Open" position rests upon a strict literal rendering of certain passages, that I find it odd that many Open Theists choose not to maintain this literalism in matters of prophecy.
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 10/11/2005 4:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Tom:
One more thing. Philber's comment's re: "classical omniscience" were responded to with his Calvinist perspective in mind. I have many good friends who simply go into "freak-out" mode, if the idea of anything less than "fully exhaustive foreknowledge" be in mind when speaking of Divine Omnicience.
I am very much in sympathy however with your defence of the ligitimacy of Divine Omnicience, as understood by persons holding the Open View.
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 10/12/2005 6:00 AM (GMT -6) | | I choose not to defend or hold Open Theism, not because it's view on the Omnicience of God is "unorthodox" when properly understood (because it is flawless in this regard); but because of the willy nilly certainty which it affords God in the matter of bringing prophetic events to specific, unfailing consumation.
You join with Berman however, in the matter of "intermittent literalism". Literal when it suits you, and fuzzy when it does not. I allow myself no such luxury, and I believe my view to be more "correct" because of it.
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Jeff, it's just be, so don't mind it, but I've got no idea what you mean. A choice for God that is not a personal one? Unintelligible to me.
Jeff: It's not an LFW choice. It's a belief. I don't choose, by LFW, to believe that 2+2=4. I do so because the intuitions that constrain my mental processes COMPEL me to believe it. I see the effectual call as analogous. God SHINES THE LIGHT in the darkened heart and sight results (2 Cor. 4:6). All subsequent sanctification requires LFW.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/12/2005 9:27:28 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/12/2005 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul: You join with Berman however, in the matter of "intermittent literalism". Literal when it suits you, and fuzzy when it does not. I allow myself no such luxury...
Tom: Not when it suits me. That would be arbitrary. But when it suits the text and its meaning. Do I interpret "wings" in "God will cover you with his wings" literally? No. Do I interpret "love" in "God is love" literally? Yes. Would you like to demonstrate for me how I interpret the first as figurative language and the second as literal only because it "suits" me? Do you not recognize a literal and a figurative use of language?
Jeff: It's not an LFW choice. It's a belief. I don't choose, by LFW, to believe that 2+2=4. I do so because the intuitions that constrain my mental processes COMPEL me to believe it. I see the effectual call as analogous.
Tom: Then that's where we disagree, because (in my view) belief is most certainly a "choice to relate to another person" and not mere ascent to or recognition of propositional truth like 2 + 2 = 4. The former can include some of the latter. For me to choose to to relate personally to my wife, I have to believe certain propositions, that "she exists," that "I exist," etc. But belief in the latter does not compel engagement in the former, and belief is engagment in the former, THAT is "belief unto salvation."
But assuming God can effectually compell such belief, what doesn't he do so universally? That would be an easy thing for him to secure since he can determine it. And assuming he does it at all, wouldn't such an effectual determination of belief in God entail an effectual determination of the means (the information and its delivery) by which people are compelled by their intuitions when confronted with certain propositions to believe? Wouldn't the necessary 'confrontation with truth" which intuition requires if it is to compell belief, have to be as effectual as belief? Or does God only decide to effectually call 'some' of those whose intuitions happen to be on the receiving end of the necessary truths? And then what of those whose intuitions work as well as intuitions should and who are confronted with the necessary truths, but are not compelled by their intuitions to believe. If "belief" follows from the intersection of intuition and truth (as you say 2 + 2 = 4 does for everybody) then how do you account for the unbelief of those who reject the truth?
Talk about parsimony! Take care, Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/12/2005 11:56:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 11:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Then that's where we disagree, because 'belief' (in my view) is most certainly a "choice to relate."
Jeff: How do you apply that to God's knowledge being justified belief? Choices are events that occur in time, even by Alan's definition I would think.
I would agree that right thinking requires proper CONTROL. The absence of control results in free-association, which does not guarantee proper, justified belief. But the control, once obtained by LFW, is constrained by our intuitions. Consequently, it would require a choice to NOT believe in the law of non-contradiction. It requires no choice, IMO, to think according to that law, once attention is applied. It is completely natural. In fact, most people don't even think of the law of non-contradiction when they're thinking. They're just doing it naturally. Though it does require LFW to focus the attention (i.e., control) to think aright.
Regardless, the texts seem to say that God's supernatural revelation DOES play a role in people's belief. What, e.g., do you think it means when it says that God calls the light out of darkness and shines in the hearts of men to give them knowledge (2 Cor. 4:6)?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/12/2005 11:46:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/12/2005 12:07 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: How do you apply that to God's knowledge being justified belief? Choices are events that occur in time, even by Alan's definition I would think.
Tom: Is God's belief that he exists justified or unjustified belief, Jeff? You've previously conceded it IS justified. You've also conceded that God NECESSARILY believes in the propositions "I exist," "I'm triune," etc. So you admit the category of necessary AND justified belief. But time is irrelevant to this category of belief. God's justified belief in these necessary truths does not begin at some point in time EVEN IF God is eternally temporal. So you simply can't counter me with objections that assume justified belief REQUIRES the passage of time. It doesn't.
A necessary being's justified belief in necessary truth is by defintion not temporally arrived at [which is not to say such a being is atemporal, but only that neither the belief itself nor its being justified "take time."]
A necessary being's justified belief in contingent truth is by definition temporally arrived at.
A contingent being's justified belief in necessary truth is by defintion temporall arrived at.
A contingent being's justified belief in contingent truth is by definition temporally arrived at.
A belief's being "justified" does not require the passage of time. Justified belief only requires the passage of time if 'contingency' is introduced; i.e., the believer is a contingent being, or the proposition is a contingent truth, or both believer and truth are contingent.
And more specifically (with regard to your question), I of course mean "my believing unto salvation is a choice to relate personally to God." I'm not talking about a necessary being's necessary belief in necessary truths (which beliefs you have admitted). If God determins my choice of him, then the resulting relationship by defintion is not a 'personal' one, and I categorically refuse to depersonalize salvation. It's a personal and relational affair.
Jeff: Regardless, the texts seem to say that God's supernatural revelation DOES play a role in people's belief. What, e.g., do you think it means when it says that God calls the light out of darkness and shines in the hearts of men to give them knowledge (2 Cor. 4:6)?
Tom: I think it means a) we can't make a libertarian choice to relate personally to God if God does not initiate communication by revealing himself to us, and b) if God initiates communication and reveals himself we're still free to reject him.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/12/2005 12:34:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 1:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Is God's belief that he exists justified or unjustified belief, Jeff? You've previously conceded it IS justified. You've also conceded that God NECESSARILY believes in the propositions "I exist," "I'm triune," etc. So you admit the category of necessary AND justified belief.
Jeff: There is a difference between conceding what seems logically necessary and claiming that OUR definitions can explain it. God seemingly must have always known things. That doesn't necessarily mean that propositions exist eternally that God "believes." My confession is that we can't meaningfully describe God's so-called necessary knowledge. That's why I don't presume to know what it MUST entail. Maybe it includes all contingencies, maybe it doesn't. It's beyond me how we could prove it. And the fact that God does SOME intellectual activity in time (purpose creation, recognize actualities when they occur, etc.) indicates that we need an ARGUMENT to prove that ALL else is known eternally.
Why, e.g., did God CHOOSE to create? You, yourself, mentioned the difficulty of explaining how He gets "off the dime" from a static state. The same applies here. For me, the ONLY conceivable explanation of why God created is that for some reason, unbeknownst to us, something "entered" God's mind that aroused His sensibilities? With nothing NEW in His consciousness, His action is inexplicable. If there WAS something new, then we have God's intellectual activity pre-creation. If the latter, we can't assume that God's knowledge is STATIC before creation.
Tom: And more specifically (with regard to your question), I of course mean "my believing unto salvation is a choice to relate personally to God."
Jeff: I don't think Lewis would have seen his conversion that way. My own experience was one where I felt like I was up against the wall with no exit, at first. Believing in the heart that Christ is Lord and that he is ressurected is the justifying belief. All else is brought TO that experience. Every person brings different feelings and beliefs to that experience. I believe that some people embrace God's revelation of Himself with open arms. But that is a coincidence of their own personal experience, not necessarily the DEFINING essence of their justifying belief. Besides, God's love is poured out into our heart at the time of conversion, so that alone makes the experience SEEM like a choice.
Tom: If God determins my choice him, then the resulting relationship by defintion is not a 'personal' one, and I categorically refuse to depersonalize salvation. It's a personal and relational affair.
Jeff: I didn't choose to be the son of my mother, but that doesn't in any way diminish the very real personal relationship we have. Same with adoption. God doesn't determine my choice. That would be a contradiction. God REVEALS Himself to me, and simultaneously adopts me. Thereafter, the quality of my relationship with Him is largely volitional, just like with our earthly parents. That's how I see it, anyway.
Again, I'm just going with what seems to me to be the most perspicuous and parsimonious reading of the relevant passages. If I'm wrong, it's not going to change one thing about how our sanctification is to proceed. Nor does it change the fact that God will reveal Himself to ANYONE who will seek Him.
If I was seeking God when I converted, contrary to Paul's claim about 1st century heathens, so be it (although I think you would agree that I wasn't, had you known me). But I still have Paul's statements about 1st century converts to deal with. If you don't feel as constrained by texts as I do, that's OK. But apart from texts, what can I really know about justifying belief?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 2:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I think it means a) we can't make a libertarian choice to relate personally to God if God does not initiate communication by revealing himself to us, and b) if God initiates communication and reveals himself we're still free to reject him.
Jeff: Well, here is where I go back to Rom. 1, which says humans know enough to know they should be thankful to God and glorify God. That's a kind of personal relationship which only requires knowledge of the invisible attributes of God implied in the creation. But Paul says the unconverted gentiles didn't do this, though it was possible.
And yes, we are free to reject God, as we are free to reject our parents. But rejecting God's revelation of Himself is not, at first, DISBELIEVING that revelation. It is the refusal to live accordingly. The same is said in Rom. 1. They SUBJECT the truth in unrighteousness. They do not APPROVE the knowledge of God. THAT is an LFW choice. The recognition of the revelation of creation is NOT so clearly an LFW choice.
Tom: A belief's being "justified" does not require the passage of time. Justified belief only requires the passage of time if 'contingency' is introduced; i.e., the believer is a contingent being, or the proposition is a contingent truth, or both believer and truth are contingent.
Jeff: The problem is, verbs are defined by contingent beings. And as such they have time relations. We don't have a vocabulary to speak of "justified" belief in eternally-existing, unproduced propositions. For "justified" belief means epistemologically grounded belief. Which, by definition, means a belief that RESULTS from an intellectually competent ACT or PROCESS.
Maybe there is SOME kind of justification for God's belief in eternally-existent, unproduced propositions. But it is not explicable by human language which uses verbs.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/12/2005 2:47:58 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 3:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: But assuming God can effectually compell such belief, what doesn't he do so universally? That would be an easy thing for him to secure since he can determine it.
Jeff: There are ALWAYS theodicy issues no matter which way you go. I could ask, e.g., if God leaves salvation up to whoever receives the gospel properly, why doesn't God assure that ALL will hear the gospel? I think Rom. 1 settles that whole issue. Men are without excuse because they don't act consistent with what they DO KNOW and/or HAVE KNOWN. Romans 1 seems to argue for a more minimal theodicy than most people are comfortable with. Not saying it's the most touchy-feely, but it seems to be coherent.
And since I believe in a resurrection unto a finite judgement followed by a second death, I don't have the problem of having to account for eternal torment in conjunction with the question of why God doesn't save all. Thus, whereas Judas' judgement is such that it would have been better had he never been born, that will NOT be true of many an unbeliever. Many people suffer greatly in wars but are still glad to be alive. By analogy, many will suffer for their evil works but still not so much that their life was not worth living.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/12/2005 5:06:08 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/12/2005 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: The problem is, verbs are defined by contingent beings. And as such they have time relations. We don't have a vocabulary to speak of "justified" belief in eternally-existing, unproduced propositions.
Tom: But we can, I argue, 'conceive' of the category of 'metaphysically necessary' things without having to BE ourselves metaphysically necessary beings. And we can and do use verbs to describe the existence of necessary things, we just qualify it with adjectives like "timelessly" or "necessarily." The language we use to describe such existents is not itself those existents, but it's not meaningless or mystical either.
Jeff: For "justified" belief means epistemologically grounded belief. Which, by definition, means a belief that RESULTS from an intellectually competent ACT or PROCESS.
Tom: Then you can't 'meaningfully' agree that God necessarily knows ANYTHING.
Jeff: Maybe there is SOME kind of justification for God's belief in eternally-existent, unproduced propositions.
Tom: Exactly!
Jeff: But it is not explicable by human language which uses verbs.
Tom: Then what did you just do? You've just used human language, verbs, and reasoning to conclude the necessity of God's knowing necessary truths. There, I just said it too. OK, you only concluded the 'possibility' [you said "maybe"], but you did so meaningfully and as a contingent being. I think you make this more difficult than it is, Jeff. A contingent being (like you or me) can have reasonable grounds for concluding the existence of necessary truths even though such a being isn't itself necessary and has no experiential equivalent to "never having come into existence." Our reasoning processes really ARE adquate for the job of 'conceiving' of 'necessary things' qua necessary and doing so meaningfully without turning the brain off and leaping into mysticism. Otherwise you have to flat out deny the meaningfulness of the very concept of 'necessity' or 'necessary being'. But it clearly IS a meaningful concept.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/12/2005 5:54:02 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: I think you make this more difficult than it is, Jeff. A contingent being (like you or me) can have reasonable grounds for concluding the existence of necessary truths even though such a being isn't itself necessary and has no experiential equivalent to "never having come into existence." Our reasoning processes really ARE adquate for the job of 'conceiving' of 'necessary things' qua necessary and doing so meaningfully without turning the brain off and leaping into mysticism.
Jeff: I would say that we have "reasonable grounds for concluding the existence of" SOME eternal awareness of God. But it is NOT reasonable to say we understand the MODE or EXTENT of that knowledge. And it is beyond me how we could know that contingencies are NECESSARY truths. Necessary for what? We agree that some truths are NOT necessary to God's past existence--like the truth that I exist. SO, how do we prove WHICH truths are necessary to God's past existence? Self-consciousness of the godhead seems pretty inevitable. Any knowledge or awareness that is necessary to account for relationship before creation ALSO seems NECESSARY to account for scriptural statements. But CONTINGENCIES? Why would I feel compelled to believe the knowledge of them is eternal?
The thing is, Tom, you just work from a different default position. You seem to say that if I CAN'T prove that some conceivable class of God's knowledge is temporally obtained, then, not only must that class exist, but it MUST be eternal. I say we are born with certain intuitions and we experientially evolve all of our knowledge. Therefore, if it is not INTUITIVE that God eternally knows all truths (and it's not), we must ACCOUNT for why we believe any given class of God's knowledge exists and is eternal. This is where we disagree, as I see it.
But regardless, some claims are just beyond our intuitions, like God knowing what is not metaphysically and epistemologically grounded. These claims should only be held dogmatically, IMO, if they seem NECESSARY to account for creation or scripture. And I don't see how God's ETERNAL attribute knowledge of contingencies is necessary to understand either.
Assuming that something about creation or script ure necessitates the postulation of God's pre-creation foreknowledge of contingencies, it is conceivable that God might have obtained such knowledge by an act of deduction from what He knew He was about to create. And again, it seems like SOMETHING must have ENTERED God's mind to even account for His decision to create in the first place.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/12/2005 7:27:44 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/12/2005 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Jeff: I would say that we have "reasonable grounds for concluding the existence of" SOME eternal awareness of God.
Tom: Grrrreat! Then you grant the meaningfulness of “necessarily knowing necessary truths” without your having to BE a necessary being. So now we’ve got the cubby hole in place. The only question is what to put in it!
Jeff: But it is NOT reasonable to say we understand the MODE or EXTENT of that knowledge.
Tom: By “mode” I’m guessing you mean whether necessary knowledge of necessary truths is temporal or atemporal. And I agree. Simply knowing that such a sentient being (knower) exists and that such a knower necessarily knows doesn’t itself whether that knower is eternally temporal or atemporal sans creation. Could be either I suppose. Big deal.
But "extent"? Well, it would be very reasonable to say that a being who knows SOME necessary truths because such knowledge is entailed in that being’s knowing him/herself would know ALL necessary truths equally entailed in such self-knowledge or self-awareness. That’s very reasonable. Of course, if…
A) you have GOOD reasons to suppose that a necessary sentient being only PARTIALLY knows him/herself, then to that degree you can doubt that he knows all necessary truths. Do you have good reasons for believing that God, a necessarily sentient being, doesn’t possess full and infallible knowledge of his own being and nature? You’re supposing that belief that God knows himself fully and infallibly is on equal par with the view that he’s ignorant about an infinite number of necessary truths that he himself grounds?
or if
B) you can mount a plausible argument for why we should believe propositions positing future contingencies are not necessary truths, then you’d have good reason to doubt that God’s knowing necessary truths would entail his knowing sans creational truths about future contingents (since such truths wouldn't exit sans creation).
Jeff: And it is beyond me how we could know that contingencies are NECESSARY truths. Necessary for what?
Tom: Not necessary FOR what, Jeff. See, that tells me you and I aren’t really on the same page with regard to what a necessary truth is. Necessary truths don’t get their necessity FOR anything. They get it FROM something.
And it’s really “beyond” you how a person could plausibly believe the propositions positing future contingencies are necessarily true? You have no idea of any reason why this might be thought to be the case? If that’s the case…
then I SUCK at this board-stuff and I'm frickin givin up!
Seriously.
Jeff: We agree that some truths are NOT necessary to God's past existence--like the truth that I exist.
Tom: Heh? I don’t think any propositional truth is necessary TO anything at all, least of all TO God. Dude, we’re talking about two different things!
Jeff: SO, how do we prove WHICH truths are necessary to God's past existence? Self-consciousness of the godhead seems pretty inevitable. Any knowledge or awareness that is necessary to account for relationship before creation ALSO seems NECESSARY to account for scriptural statements.
Tom: I don’t conclude that God knows some necessary truths (those you agree he necessarily knows) because knowledge of such truths makes God's trinitarian life and self-relating possible. That is, such necessary truths are not NECESSARY TO God. They don’t make self-awareness and triune delight POSSIBLE. The line runs in quite the opposite direction. I conclude that God knows “I [God] exist” because he relates meaningfully to himself. His trinitarian self-awareness is logically NECESSARY TO the truth of the proposition “I [God] exist” rather than the other way around.
Jeff: But CONTINGENCIES? Why would I feel compelled to believe the knowledge of them is eternal?
Tom: Because a) they are by definition eternal (I argued that a while ago and you agreed!), b) their truth is grounded in the same self-awareness that grounds the proposition “I [God] exist,” and c) because knowledge of such propositions would be available to God IN THE SAME trinitarian self-awareness that you agree requires us to conclude God necessarily knows “I [God] exist.” I might ask you how a God who knows himself perfectly could AVOID knowing future contingencies. Such contingencies exist BECAUSE God is a thinking, self-relating being.
Jeff: The thing is, Tom, you just work from a different default position. You seem to say that if I CAN'T prove that some conceivable class of God's knowledge is temporally obtained, then, not only must that class exist, but it MUST be eternal.
Tom: You’ve already agreed though that propositions positing future contingencies are a) eternal by definition and b) grounded in God’s own being, nature and character. Sounds like you no longer think that. ?
Jeff: Assuming that something about creation or scripture necessitates the postulation of God's pre-creation foreknowledge of contingencies, it is conceivable that God might have obtained such knowledge by an act of deduction from what He knew He was about to create.
Tom: That seems to be out of the question too, as you already conceded! Are you forgetting our agreeing that “truths” or “true propositions” don’t exist at all apart from some sentient being apprehending them? No language—no meaning. No meaning—no propositions. No propositions—no truths. If God doesn’t necessarily know props describing future contingencies sans creation (and God is the only sentient anything around to give 'meaning' to anything) then such props don’t exist, period and THAT is a very counter intuitive leap in my opinion.
Jeff: And again, it seems like SOMETHING must have ENTERED God's mind to even account for His decision to create in the first place.
Tom: Read Wolterstorff. Sometimes I lay awake in bed on Saturday morning for some time contemplating my getting up. Eventually, I “just” get up. Yes, “just” get up, without any “extra” bit of knowledge being “deduced” to justify my getting out of bed at 10:03 which I did not also know 10:02 or any time earlier. I just decide to get up. That's all.
It’s always fun talking wicha Jeff!
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/13/2005 12:22:17 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Paul M. Blackmore
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2005
Total Posts : 53
| Posted 10/13/2005 4:47 AM (GMT -6) | |
Tom said...Do I interpret "wings" in "God will cover you with his wings" literally? No. Do I interpret "love" in "God is love" literally? Yes. Would you like to demonstrate for me how I interpret the first as figurative language and the second as literal only because it "suits" me? Do you not recognize a literal and a figurative use of language?
That is a pretty poor excuse by which to write off "the figures and the literal meaning of those figures" spelled out clearly in the Book of Revelation.
Running off to find figurative language in the Bible, all of which is intended only to enhance and undeline literal, real-life events and actions by God or by men; is hardly licence to deny the literal, certain nature of prophectic utterance.
You have not justified your position at all IMO.
It's a good thing that the "maji" were not given to such denial of literal prophecy, don't you think? 
Psalms 119
96I have seen an end of all perfection: but thy commandment is exceeding broad.
97O how love I thy law! it is my meditation all the day. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/13/2005 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Paul: Running off to find figurative language in the Bible, all of which is intended only to enhance and undeline literal, real-life events and actions by God or by men; is hardly licence to deny the literal, certain nature of prophectic utterance.
Tom: Why don't you try taking ME literally (which you of course fail to do!)? Look Paul, I didn't say figurative language is not literally true. It is. Nor did I suggest that such langauge doesn't point to or enhance real life events and actions. Of course it does. All I said was that it does so via the figurative USE of language. This is undeniable. We use language figuratively whether you recognize it or not. And so does the Bible. God does not have literal wings. He is not a literal "rock" or "tower." But his being "our rock" is a figurative way of expressing something very much literally true about him, viz., that he is the strong, dependable, sure, and trustworthy foundation of our life.
Do you really want to suggest that God is a literal, material 'rock'? Is he the garden type or the quarry type?
Welcome to the figurative use of language. Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/13/2005 8:33:59 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:04 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 |
|
|