Featured Arminian View Consequentially Different?

I am referring to "D" in the OP.

As far as God being temporal? I think that is silly, he is everywhere and in every time. He is not waiting for tomorrow like we are...He is already there

John

 

He IS IN every time? as in he is "currently" residing as it were in the past the present and the future???? I think maybe you mean to say he is simply outside of time altogether, Time is a very real thing dependent upon his creative act just like space and matter. I am just saying that some have reasonably argued (right or wrong) that "post" creation God has entered into time so to speak. It is not as silly as you are suggesting. Does the future even exist to be inhabited? Does the past?

 

No, I agree that God knows that it WILL not be the case. You probably think I am merely parsing words here, but it is the crux of my argument. Try these on for size?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX3uujCanf8&feature=relmfu
There are two parts, the assertion is basically that the determinists and the Open Theist both make the same error in viewing foreknowledge.

I DO see the problem, and given what I take to be your view on foreknowledge I would agree with you, but I think the view I espouse (the "Middle Knowledge" view) is the only way I know to solve the conundrum. IF that view I espouse is not true, I would have to agree with you.

Calvinists randomly help themselves to whatever rebuttal they feel like at any given time. The trick they use is to have their theology swing on a pendulum that never stops. You know this, attempting to force them to admit the logical conclusion of their theology is like nailing jello to a wall. They talk about "free will" and in practice their definition of it (which you and I know is disingenuous) is no more signifigant than the free will exhibited by cockroaches. This is why Hyper-Calvinist Supra-lapsarians are the most wonderful beautiful people on Earth. They are the very definition of intellectual honesty. Infralapsarians simply help themselves to any definition of any given word at any time at will. (Well or by decree)

No, I would not. Raw possibility must remain, or I would hang it up and then choose between
1.) Hyper-Calvinism (the only logically consistent kind)
2.) Arminianism which merely says: "How does he know it?? heck if I know he just does."
3.) Open Theism
I would default to Arminianism I think.

I know it is VERY counter-intuitive, but this is the very premise of yours that I am rejecting.

I don't think it is like proposing that at all. Jesus, after all, did in fact (while remaining fully Divine) step in to time, matter and space just as a man, and yet God is, and remains (in his essential nature at least) timeless and immaterial; thus not occupying space. Some people propose that God is timeless prior to the creative decree and has become temporal since the creative decree. That is one possibility that I am not committed to myself, but it is one possibility I suppose.

If you mean sequence of temporal events?? BINGO!! nosir there were not...
consider:

A.) If there were an infinite sequence of time prior to this one then the present moment has not yet arrived
B.) But the present moment HAS arrived
Therefore:
There has not been an infinite sequence of events prior to now

"Actual" infinities of any kind are self-defeating. Look up "Hilbert's Grand Hotel" It demonstrates the absurdity of "actual" infinites. Infinities ARE like saying A and -A!
Time MUST have had a beginning, Note too that the Bible says there will come a day when time shall be no more. Time is as much a part of the creative decree as anything else in the material universe. God created it, he will nix it when he is finished with it. Think Leibniz's question to Clarke, "Why Did God Not Create the Word Sooner? ...

If I may add this as an aside (and I forget who to credit this quote initially with) but I am paraphrasing anyway:
"It is up to God whether you find yourself in a world wherein you are predestined,
but it is up to YOU whether you are predestined in the world you are in" (paraphrased)

 

And "Calvinism" resolves the cognitive dissonance that is unavoidable in believing that God is inherently bound to create in such a way that purposeless, unmitigated evil is very much a possibility and virtually guaranteed statistically, making God only able to create "dealing with the hand that is dealt Him" to be consistent with His presumed nature. The alternative to the view of the sovereign decree of God is a dualism of good and evil like zoorastrianism such that true goodness can only be rightly defined with the real presence of evil and likewise the other. In other words, you have God ultimately defining the warp and woof of what He creates, not the creation defining the being of its Creator in reverse.

I cannot accept the idea that purposeless, unmitigated evil is essentially necessary to "personhood" such that God has no choice but to create creatures that frustrate His highest will.

 

Quick question: Are you appealing to an idea that God has a "revealed will" and also a "secret will" ?

I would take issue with this:

from either a non-OT or Open Theist view, I don't think this is a necessary assumption, I don't think OT's believe this. I think they believe he Sovereignly chose to do things a certain way.

Is God's sovereignty so limited by a Cal-that he has to have his own way like a 3-year-old child who demands that all details make him perfectly happy at all times? Or are you simply suggesting something about the necessity of his character. Just trying to clarify.

Oh... and loving your book, Aresman WE ARE LEARNING SO MUCH!! the wife and I:love2:

:tongue3:But I think we are leaning towards the "3 tithes" explanation more:laugh: Well, you win some you lose some :godisgood:

EVERYONE PURCHASE ARESMAN'S BRILLIANT BOOK....USE CASH MONEY$$$$$$$

 

AAARRGGGHHH!!!!! take it easy there humble, to my knowledge... I am the only Molinist on BB! Your questions are too poingnant, reasonable and well thought out. Throw me a frikkin bone here... Hello fellow followers of a 16th century Catholic theologian whose sole purpose was to fight the reformation!!! Where you at??

O.K. I will try, forgive me if my answers are not adequate:

No, the real hang-up for me is actually the word COULD Seriously, that's all. Other than that, I agree with 90% of your premises. That is why I truly fear that you might think I am "creating divisions about strifes of words" or parsing words as I said before. I HONESTLY believe that the difference between will and could is signifigant. It is the difference to me between a necessary truth and a contingent truth. Perhaps if I put it this way. God believes all true propositions and believes no false ones. Alternatively, God knows only and all true propositions. Now, let us take tense away from all propositions:

1.) Christ will die in a.d. 30 (future tense))
2.) Christ dies today (present tense)
3.) Christ died in a.d. 30 (past tense)

God knows all truths timelessly, thus what God knows is simply the proposition "Christ dies a.d. 30". Propositions only exist in the present no?

.

I would say the difference is between something being logically prior and something being temporally prior. The actual propositional content of what it is that God knows is contingent upon what his free creatures will do in any given situation.

LOL He does!!, secretly, I think he was acting like a lawyer and he already knew what WLC was going to say! I almost get the idea that it was a set-up wherein he either was a molinist himself, or he at least knew the questions to ask to get Craig to answer the questions Craig wanted to answer from the beginning. If it was a truly organic interview so to speak then yes, he did a truly amazing job!!

I will answer this even though I am not positive I understand you. If you are asking me something to the effect of (in my words):

"Do you hold to this point of view largely and/or solely because this is the viewpoint that (in your opinion) answers the most questions you have and poses the least number of problems?"

Yes, absolutely....:tongue3: Is there a better reason to hold a particular point of view about something?? Remember, I have the unenviable task of reconciling a belief in individual pre-destination and election to Salvation and real libertarian free-will (or as normal people understand it) "free will". One must add the otherwise completely unnecessary modifiers of "real" and "libertarian" to the simple notion of "free will" in order to speak intelligibly to people who have grown accustomed to the redefinition and abuse of words that Calvinists generate. If that isn't what you were asking, I'm sorry Please elaborate

WOOT!! all hail the Hypers!

I will (for now) although I could elaborate my view much more.... for the sake of brevity.... don't Open Theists have the same problem???? Don't all of us? The answer I would propose covers every Soteriological position, (well it covers Calvinism weakly) but that is the nature of the hateful God they worship. And decidedly, yes, it is much more than 50% We discuss that later maybe?

Very..... but I still am thinking it is accurate, at least as far as it goes. Unless I am mistaken, I think that you are still defining your position (as I am) I am not dogmatically commited to my position, I don't think you are either.. "iron sharpeneth iron" no?????

As you already know, or will soon learn, admitting that Wiki was a source you looked up, (despite the general accuracy of much of its content) will allow the uninformed to conclude you don't know what you are talking about (even though all of us do it).

That being said: I actually do take issue with their definition of time....
I am no authority on the topic but ... as far as I can tell there is an equivocation on their part. I would (somewhat ignorantly) argue that they are equivocating between our ability to measure time and the ontological reality of time itself. I will simply stop here on this without answering the rest of your statement because we have covered too much ground already. Bring up the totality of your objections later PLEASE

No matter what ones views are... if it doesn't make you think, nay, FEEL like this... it simply is not of God....period.

I have obviously misunderstood you then, because I thought I had you pinned down for the count, nailed to a wall and begging for mercy. Drat and Be-bother, I guess I must ask you to elaborate your position more then, because I had previously thought you a less worthy adversarry than you are.... c'mon...... you at least have Van working with you.... do I got no one? :laugh:

he he... yes I must admit... it was an ingenious move to honestly or dishonestly invoke Leibniz in whatever argument I was making... too bad... I thought of it first.... he is now in my column!!!:tongue3:

Oh, and I yours.....THANK YOU!!!:1_grouphug: