The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Refuting Arminianism?

Evangelical Universalism
#21

I am well aware of this philosophical, but meaningless (in my opinion) concept. What does it mean to exist “outside of time” or to live in “the eternal prersent”? I think this is mere gobbeldy-gook which supposedly explains God’s supposed knowledge of the future. No one knows the future since there is no future to know.

Sentences about the future have no present truth value, and the only propositions which can be known are those with truth value (either true of false). Such propositions are called “logical statements.”

For example, “My wife is driving the car toward town.” That sentence is either true or false. It is a logical statement. Therefore it is possible for it to be true, and for someone to know that it is true.

On the other hand, consider any sentence about the future.

“On Dec. 25, Joe Bloe will eat mince pie.” It is in statement form, and therefore is mistaken for a logical statement. But does it have truth value? Is it either true of false NOW? Let’s assume that it is. Then there are only two possibilities. The sentence is true or the sentence is false.

Suppose the sentence is true. Then it is impossible for Joe Bloe to refrain from eating mince pie on Dec. 25.
Suppose the sentence is false. Then it is impossible for Joe Bloe to eat mince pie on Dec. 25.
In either case, there is something Joe Bloe CANNOT do. But nothing outside himself is preventing him from eating or not eating the pie. Thus he must not have the ability to choose whether or not to eat it. And so it is with any other logical statement about the future (if such exist). Thus Joe Bloe (as well as everyone else) does not possess free will.

However, the sentence, “On Dec. 25, Joe Bloe will eat mince pie,” is neither true nor false, but BECOMES true of false on Dec. 25, then the problem evaporates. But if the sentence is not a statement, what is it? I claim that it’s a PREDICTION. The real meaning of the sentence is, “I predict that on Dec. 25, Joe Bloe will eat mince pie.” Other sentences about the future are statements of intention. For example, “I will go to town tomorrow” actually means “I intend to go to town tomorrow.”

So no one (including God) can know (in an absolute sense) the future, since there’s nothing to know. This does NOT deny the omniscience of God. He knows everything that it is possible to know, but He cannot know something that isn’t there to know. For example, He cannot know that there’s a pink elephant in your living room, if there is no such elephant. Similarly He cannot know what you are going to choose tomorrow, but He can make excellent predictions of you will choose because He knows your character completely. God’s predictions are known as “prophecy”.

However, what God thought or predicted would happen didn’t always happen. For example:

Even if it’s “I said” instead of “I thought” as some translations have it, this doesn’t make much difference. For God wouldn’t SAY a thing that He knew was false.

Now why would God DECLARE that He would destroy a nation and INTEND to do it, if He KNEW that they were going to repent, and that He would change His mind and NOT do it?

#22

Paidion - a couple of questions on your post.

  1. There has been fulfilled prophecy. Lots of it. Unless we’re willing to say that the prophecies were written after the fact, in order to encourage a certain group such as the Babylonian captives. Along with this, do you think it is possible that in what a prophet said the Lord said, the prophet was mistaken, and his mistake is simply recorded in the scripture? I don’t know.

  2. I notice you quote the RSV - is that a translation of choice for you - and how does the NRSV stack up in your opinion?

Dave

#23

I would be willing to see prophecies as wish fulfillment.

But this is just the heretic me :smiley:

#24

Judas Iscariot might not agree…

#25

I think that the broader topics are known explicitly by God, like being able to go to the last page of a book. God can intervene in society and instantaneously know the outcome of the bigger picture. Like looking at variables or errors in a computer code and having a default warning that prevents any action that interferes with the proper working of the code. Working with webpage code is a little similar. You can insert a code (intervene in history) and run a script to see if the insertion will function properly. All of this can be done ‘off-line’ in a virtual machine so that it does not interfere with the real working code. God can place trillions of insertions (interventions) and then test the code - before and after - to know the overall effect. God knows in advance which governments would succeed each other because the code demonstrates those variables based on natural population; natural disasters, known wars; known heroes, known interventions, etc. God can see clearly what the code demonstrates, and God knows exactly what events might change the direction of the code, and those are often times that God intervenes in order to stabilize the code. God also knows who will choose faith and who will not - particularly the first fruits, such as the apostles and church fathers (and Judas Iscariot). God knows also the end results, and who will be His “two witnesses”, and who will accept the “mark of the beast”. These things are already determined by the code. There can be variables and interventions without changing any of the functioning of the code.

Sorry for the computer analogies, but I think computer coding can easily demonstrate how free-will and predestination can cooperate within the same code.

#26

Analogies are great, they can really illuminate what a person means, in a way other people can grasp.

If God has decreed the future, it will come to pass, and prophecy makes complete sense. To me… I don’t think that’s gobbledegook - if that’s how you spell it. :wink:

#27

Hi all,

I think Paidion and Stef’s arguments are great examples of “Open Theism” as explained by Pastor Greg Boyd. In his view, God does not know the future because it hasn’t happened yet. (Just as Paidion described) God does have infinite knowledge of what can be known and is like a Chess master knowing the probabilities of what is likely to happen because of this knowledge and can achieve his goals because of this. Boyd believes in Libertarian free-will so God doesn’t know what every individual will do until they do it, but in the case of prophecy,God intervenes to insure His will and thus the prophecy, is fulfilled. Boyd thus views the future as partially open and partially closed. I am sympathetic to Open Theism as it has great utility in the Problem of Evil and the efficacy of Intercessory prayer, but remain ‘agnostic’ (to tell the truth).

#28

As do I, Steve. I’m not sure whether I believe open theism or not. I wonder if my default position would be considered open? It seems to me that Father is magnificently brilliant enough that He knows all the variables, knows every hair on our heads and every thought in our hearts before we even think them. Not because He has forseen us thinking that thought but because He knows the effect certain stimuli will produce in us and He knows which stimuli will come to affect us. I think that’s more or less what Stef said with his excellent analogy of computer coding. Coding has SO much about it that’s pertinent to theology. It’s fascinating (even though I barely begin to understand it!)

Second to this, I guess I’d go with open theism wherein He knows more or less how things will go down and He knows He’s going to salvage any losses and fix any brokenness and basically put Humpty Dumpty better – far better – together again. My favorite analogy for this is my painting (NOT my pottery!! THAT’s hard to fix.) I know when I set out to paint a picture that I’m going to encounter many problems and that I will fix them all and produce a better painting than I did the last time (unless it’s watercolor; then it’s a bit iffy!) If I can be reasonably sure of this, I think I can easily trust Father to make it all work out, even if He cannot know (because there’s nothing there to know yet) or chooses not to know the future. So I’m okay either way.

#29

“Open Theism” is an excellent starting point to arrive at a view that takes all of the pieces of information into account. For a brief overview, here is Greg Boyd explaining Open Theism:

Steve, I think your proviso is well stated: “in the case of prophecy, God intervenes to insure His will and thus the prophecy, is fulfilled.”

#30

I’d like to have a friendly disagreement. :smiley:

We make computers to be like us, and to do what we tell them (at least until the Singularity happens, then all bets are off!). Any analogy that we derive from computer operations can only be a reflection of us in some way, not a reflection of who God is.

Also, after creating these things, we then use terminology for how they operate to describe how humans operate! But they are less than human, not more, and their functions are severely reduced from what a human being is and can do.

So I think we are really backwards in our thinking on this. Though as I said before, the analogy Steve used was a good one for making his argument clear.

I cannot buy into Open Theism though I do see its attraction.

#31

Dave, do you think that all events and situations were already known and established before creation? In other words, can God not react to events, or even prayers, and alter a previously established outcome? Are all abortions, murders and rapes predetermined? I am not sure what your alternative to Open Theism is, Dave?

#32

Steve, I’m not up to the discussion right now. There is a wealth of support for both positions out there. I stand by mine; who knows, I could be wrong, so could you. I know for a fact we won’t settle the issue on this forum.

#33

Dave asked:

Yes there has been much fulfilled prophecy. There are very few instances in which the prophecy didn’t materialize. But all prophecy is God’s prediction.
Even we, ill-informed human beings can make predictions which often come true. When my oldest son was 2-3 years old, and if I said, “Jamie, come here,” I could predict that he would always come, and he always did. I knew my son. But yet he could have refused. He had free will. I didn’t remove that free will by my training. Now God is in a MUCH better to make predictions than any human being, because He is omnipotent. He knows every thought and intent of the heart! He knows every condition in the world and every chain of causation. That is why the vast majority of His predictions materialize. But His great ability to predict, with His predictions becoming reality is different from saying that He KNOWS that these predictions will materialize. For if particular human beings make choices contrary to His expectations, His predictions may not materialize.

  1. I notice you quote the RSV - is that a translation of choice for you - and how does the NRSV stack up in your opinion?

It is difficult to get a physical copy of the RSV anymore, but I have it as one of the many translations on my Online Bible program. What I don’t like about the NRSV is that it has removed the supposed “sexism” of the New Testament. For example, where Paul addresses a group as “Brothers”, the NRSV translates the word as “Brother and Sisters”. While it is true that Paul included the sisters in his address, he nonetheless used the word “Brothers”. Thus the NRSV has not faithfully translated Paul’s words as he spoke them.

There is a better update of the RSV, and that is the ESV (English Standard Version). The physical Bible I generally use and carry to church is the ESV.

#34

6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the

That verse Ro. 6.6 has always been a sort of test for me - Paul uses the words our old man, but except for the 1901 ASV I’m only aware of one or two translations that do not use ‘self’ - which is inexplicable to me, except that it fits a certain type of sanctification theology. BUT - the ESV does give the literal translation in a footnote, I like that.

How is the ESV in the O.T?

Doesn’t the NT speak to God’s foreknowledge, especially in prophecies concerning Christ? I just cannot fathom that God would leave THAT to chance; but if His predictions can be wrong, I suppose it follows that He could have been wrong there?

#35

Hi Cindy,

I’d say your default position is indeed an “open” view of God. I really like this analogy:

Imagine, though, if the dab of red paint decided it wanted to be green, the blue— yellow and the orange…well decided to stay orange. :smiley: Man, what trouble we give God with this “free-will” he’s given us (regardless of the ‘type’ of free-will)

All the best,
Steve

#36

:laughing: That is a very good point, Steve! It’s a very good thing He’s a lot, lot, lot smarter than me!

#37

True, but ‘smarter’ is only a part of it - all knowing is another part. I’ve got company coming so will drop in as I can - but Open Theism makes little sense to me.

#38

One other fact. I held my position for decades before I had ever heard of “open theism.” I had worked it out from scripture together with my thinking about it.Then one day when I was expressing these ideas on another forum, someone commented, “That sounds like open theism.” I had never heard the term, and so I looked it up on the web. I found a few Christian teachers who subscribed to it, and realized that I have been an open theist for many years without knowing it. It seems that I’m more of an open theist than Greg Boyd even, since I don’t believe in a “partially open” future, but a fully open future. So I guess the label “ultra-open theist” might apply to me (if such a label has been coined).

Having said this, I do agree, however, that if God intends to see an event take place, He can arrange conditions so that prior causes will usually make it happen.

Yet, even with these God-caused conditions, I think man’s will can interfere, but perhaps only temporarily. I think God’s plan of the Ages is to fulfill His desire that all submit to His authority, and that His constant influence on humanity both now and in the hereafter will eventualy wear down each and every rebel. A mere human could not hold out forever, or he would have an infinite will equal to the will of God.

God’s plan for the ages, or “plan for the fullness of time, [is] to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph.1:10). Since it is God’s ultimate, overarching BIG PLAN, He will take all steps necessary to fulfill this plan, yet without interfering with free will.

Steve Gregg made the following statement on his forum: “If His patience never wears out until He obtains His object (since infinite patience would be an option for Him),…then it would be predictable that He would eventually wear down the resistance of every last rebel, and all would eventually come to repentance.” It is interesting that Steve Gregg made such a statement since he is yet undecided concerning universal reconciliation. But he has done an amazing amount of research for his book All You Wanted to Know About Hell. He read many books on all three views and has given the authors’ best arguments for each view, as well as the best arguments against each view. Steve is not at all biased in his presentation of each view, although I think he leans more toward universal reconcilation than toward either of the other views. This doesn’t come out in his book, but it is my thought because of some of his comments on the Theos forum.

#39

There must be more to it than the phrase “the future hasn’t happened yet”, obviously, because if God has ordained what is to come to pass, He has the power and wisdom to guarantee it happens.

And ‘partially open future’ - I don’t know how that can make sense at all.

I think this is true: Hebrews 6:
So when God desired to show more convincingly to the heirs of the promise the unchangeable character of his purpose, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that by two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us. 19 We have this as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul,

It was planned out; promises were made; hope has a foundation.

Well I’ll think about it and maybe read what you suggested. Thanks. There’s always something to learn.

#40

Hi Dave,
This is a link our dear friend Pog showed me in which Greg Boyd explains very well “Open Theism” and what he means by the future being “partially open”. He’s quite a good speaker and it’s well worth listening to if only to better understand where open theists are coming from and the strength of their position. youtube.com/watch?v=P6UA1bToI7U
Steve