Foreknowledge
Arminius vs. Calvin on Unconditional Election
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Wed, 07/07/2010 - 10:01amThat the doctrine of election (or, as some would have it, predestination) is taught in Scripture is rarely denied. There are those who teach that election or predestination is only related to salvation via means of Christian service. For example, Jack Cottrell writes:
- Among those predestined to fill specific roles in the accomplishment of redemption, the primary character is the Redeemer himself, Jesus of Nazareth. The election of Jesus is the central and primary act of predestination. . . . At times other individuals were chosen for special roles in order to facilitate God's purposes. . . . As instruments for establishing the church another group of individuals were chosen, namely, the apostles. . . . That such election was for service and not salvation is seen from the fact that even Judas is among the chosen twelve (Luke 6:13; John 6:70), though his predetermined role was that of the betrayer of Jesus (John 6:71).1
Jacob Arminius: Disputant to Open Theism
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Tue, 06/29/2010 - 8:20amVincent of Lerins (early fifth century Christian writer in southern France) said that orthodoxy is "that which has been believed everywhere, always, by all."1 What has been the orthodox view of the Church on the matter of God's knowledge? Exactly what does God know, and is there any limitation to that knowledge? How does God know what He knows? Can He foreknow future free will decisions? And, what did Arminius believe on the foreknowledge of God?
Open Theism: An Arminian Pentecostal Response
The following article by James H. Railey gives a brief critique of Open Theism and supports the traditional Arminian position that God foreknows all future events, including the free choices of His creatures.
http://www.agts.edu/faculty/faculty_publications/articles/railey_open-th...
A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend
A Dialogue Between a Predestinarian and His Friend
Out of thine own mouth!
The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, A.M., Volume 10, 1872, pp. 259-266
TO ALL PREDESTINARIANS
1. I AM informed, some of you have said, that the following quotations are false; that these words were not spoken by these authors; others, that they were not spoken in this sense; and others, that neither you yourself, nor any true Predestinarian, ever did, or ever would, speak so.
2. My friends, the authors here quoted are well known, in whom you may read the words with your own eyes. And you who have read them know in your own conscience, they were spoken in this sense, and no other; nay, that this sense of them is professedly defended throughout the whole treatises whence they are taken.
Making God a Liar?
Submitted by Martin Glynn on Fri, 05/14/2010 - 9:11amThis was a question that was sent into SEA, and I thought it would be a good idea to share my thoughts on the subject more publicly. The question is as follows:
- If human beings have libertarian free will, it is within their power to make God a liar.
- It is not within their power to make God a liar.
- Therefore, human beings do not have free will.
The troublesome premise is probably the first one, so I'll explain what I mean. Imagine a scenario where God makes a promise to one person which requires for its fulfillment the cooperation of another person who is free in the libertarian sense (I take freedom in the libertarian sense to mean that in any circumstance, a person's choice is free if he has two options to choose from [acting or refraining from acting, for example] and his choice isn't coerced, and so on).
God's Foreknowledge - Peter, Judas and Christ
Submitted by Godismyjudge on Thu, 04/29/2010 - 7:46amI recently read Greg Boyd’s explanation of Christ’s foretelling Judas’s betrayal and Peter’s denial. The basic issue is that in open theism, a free choice cannot be foreknown. Boyd’s states that at the time of their sins, Judas and Peter were not free (i.e. they couldn’t choose remain faithful to Christ). But since their prior free choices had formed their character, they were still responsible even if not free at that specific moment. (Boyd on Peter, Boyd on Judas)
While I suspect this explanation is unsound for multiple reasons, let’s for the moment grant that it’s true. What about cases were the future is foretold, yet counterfactual ability is asserted?
The Calvinist View of Foreknowledge Makes God the Cause and Author of All Sin and Evil
Submitted by SEA on Thu, 04/22/2010 - 7:27amOne of our members commented concisely and incisively in our private discussion group (slightly revised here):
In Calvinism God cannot see into the future. He only knows what will happen because He will make it all happen. This again leads to the inevitable conclusion that God is the cause and author of all sin and evil in the universe. He makes sin and evil happen just as He makes everything else happen. One cannot appeal to "secondary causes" because God must make them happen as well. God directly controls everything in accordance with His all encompassing eternal decree. Some Calvinists find the Calvinist account of foreknowledge compelling precisely because it explains how God can foreknow the future, while the Arminian account doesn't care so much how God can know the future, satisfied simply to affirm that God is capable of doing such things, just as He can create out of nothing, etc.
Another Middle Knowledge Passage
Submitted by Godismyjudge on Wed, 04/14/2010 - 4:40amMiddle knowledge is mostly an implication of the scriptural truths of God's providential governance of the world and man's choices. But there are some passages that do directly teach that God knows what we would do in various circumstances. I came across a passage supporting middle knowledge this week:
In Deuteronomy 28, Moses first tells of all the blessings the people will receive if the follow God's commands: 1 "Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth."
Do Calvinists Yearn for a Deeper Understanding of Responsibility?
Submitted by Godismyjudge on Tue, 04/13/2010 - 7:52amI recently listened to a lecture by Ronald Nash, where he recounts a conversation he had with J. I. Packer. They are both Calvinists. Nash brings up the subject of Middle Knowledge. Packer says that it is Arminian. Nash says no, that it could be used by Reformers to maintain God's total sovereign control and still preserve responsibility. Packer says that he may have a point there. Here's a link to the clip. (link) The conversation is about 11 minutes in.
Is There Trauma in Sovereignty? A Response to James Swan by Brennon Hartshorn
Submitted by bossmanham on Thu, 04/08/2010 - 6:15amArminians and other Libertarians are concerned with determinism, the proposition that all of our actions are made necessary by God in some way. We are concerned because determinism seems to make God the author of sin.
The compatibilist wants to show that we can still be free and responsible for our own actions and they can be determined. David Hume, a skeptic philosopher, tried to show this is the case on a naturalistic framework. Theist determinists adopt some of Hume's arguments and augment them in order to argue that it is possible that all our actions have been pre-determined, but we freely do those actions and are therefore responsible for them. There have also been other attempts at trying to show that this is possible.
