# William Lane Craig: Time and Eternity



## RamistThomist

Divine eternity: God exists without beginning or end. But is God temporal or timeless? We will come back to this question, as Craig himself revisits it at the very end of the book. We see much about time and eternity, and the numerous tortured arguments from all sides, but little on (T/E’s) relation to God, per the book’s subtitle. That shouldn’t detract from the fine scholarship, though.

Much of the book is a sustained analysis of Einstein and the various debates concerning relativity. I’m going to skip those. The heart of Craig’s argument is setting forth two views of time:

Tensed time (A). This is the common-sense view of time (and the one Craig upholds). We can speak of past, present, and future. However, if God is timeless, as he must be if we deny that time is eternal, then it’s hard to see how he can relate to time.

Tenseless time (B). Time is an illusion, or at least speech of a past and a future is meaningless. This fits well with some models of relativity. If time is actually space-time, and space is a 3-D coordinate, and if space isn’t tensed (and it isn’t), then time is tenseless. While this is quite bizarre, and Craig offers a number of rebuttals, but its strength lies in its ability to comport with God’s eternity.

In conclusion, Craig argues that God is eternal before Creation but has a temporal dimension with respect to creation. And that’s my problem with his conclusion. I think there is something to it, but he does very little to develop it (Craig, 217-235, and much of that discussion is a summary of his Kalam argument). He adds a fine discussion on God’s foreknowledge as an appendix.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

I think it was Augustine who said something to the effect of “If I don’t think about time, I know precisely what it is, but as soon as I start thinking about it, I have no idea.”


----------



## Gforce9

Jacob,
1- Where do you find time to read all these books?
2- Do you have food slid under your door 3x/day like the military engineers that come up wIth new weapons technology? 
3- This sounds kind of interesting....an area I haven't delved into.
4- I've heard Dr. Craig speak before....and he is very smart. Given that he is a modern-day cobbler for the Jesuit, de Molina, I'm rather disinclined to listen to anything he says about the knowledge of our God.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Gforce9 said:


> Jacob,
> 1- Where do you find time to read all these books?
> 2- Do you have food slid under your door 3x/day like the military engineers that come up wIth new weapons technology?
> 3- This sounds kind of interesting....an area I haven't delved into.
> 4- I've heard Dr. Craig speak before....and he is very smart. Given that he is a modern-day cobbler for the Jesuit, de Molina, I'm rather disinclined to listen to anything he says about the knowledge of our God.



~1. This was only 200 pages. Not too bad.
~2. No, but I read when I can. Usually when I take my daughter to the library or wherever.
~4. I understand. Molinism is mentioned but not expounded here.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Edward

When I saw the title, I wondered if this was going to be about a Mormon book on marriage.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Divine eternity: God exists without beginning or end. But is God temporal or timeless? We will come back to this question, as Craig himself revisits it at the very end of the book. We see much about time and eternity, and the numerous tortured arguments from all sides, but little on (T/E’s) relation to God, per the book’s subtitle. That shouldn’t detract from the fine scholarship, though.
> 
> Much of the book is a sustained analysis of Einstein and the various debates concerning relativity. I’m going to skip those. The heart of Craig’s argument is setting forth two views of time:
> 
> Tensed time (A). This is the common-sense view of time (and the one Craig upholds). We can speak of past, present, and future. However, if God is timeless, as he must be if we deny that time is eternal, then it’s hard to see how he can relate to time.
> 
> Tenseless time (B). Time is an illusion, or at least speech of a past and a future is meaningless. This fits well with some models of relativity. If time is actually space-time, and space is a 3-D coordinate, and if space isn’t tensed (and it isn’t), then time is tenseless. While this is quite bizarre, and Craig offers a number of rebuttals, but its strength lies in its ability to comport with God’s eternity.
> 
> In conclusion, Craig argues that God is eternal before Creation but has a temporal dimension with respect to creation. And that’s my problem with his conclusion. I think there is something to it, but he does very little to develop it (Craig, 217-235, and much of that discussion is a summary of his Kalam argument). He adds a fine discussion on God’s foreknowledge as an appendix.


He is big on Middle Knowledge, Molinism, and bashing Calvinism, correct?


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He is big on Middle Knowledge, Molinism, and bashing Calvinism, correct?



Elsewhere he promotes Middle Knowledge, but not in this book. He isn't a Calvinist, but neither does he "bash" Calvinism.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

BayouHuguenot said:


> Elsewhere he promotes Middle Knowledge, but not in this book. He isn't a Calvinist, but neither does he "bash" Calvinism.


Well, he may not "bash" in the sense of hyperbolic vitriol, but he has a position on the matter:

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism

In other words, per his own words, Calvinism is _incoherent_, _irrational_, _makes God the author of sin_, _robs man of free agency_, and is _farcical_.

Seems to me _bash_ is probably an accurate descriptor, despite flowery language.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist

One of the worst qualities of many reformed Christians is a refusal to read anything that might disagree with their positions. Yes, William Lane Craig is not reformed, and so yes, there are many reformed positions with which he will disagree. Regardless, there is much profit in reading works written by those outside of our particular tribe, if for no other reason than better understanding those with whom we disagree. Plus, we might actually learn something new.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Bill The Baptist said:


> One of the worst qualities of many reformed Christians is a refusal to read anything that might disagree with their positions. Yes, William Lane Craig is not reformed, and so yes, there are many reformed positions with which he will disagree. Regardless, there is much profit in reading works written by those outside of our particular tribe, if for no other reason than better understanding those with whom we disagree. Plus, we might actually learn something new.


Indeed.

I profit much from reading Craig and many others that I disagree with, for how else could I make such a statement. Unfortunately, not a few disagree with so and so having never taken the time to fully digest their writings, contrary to taking every word captive for the glory of God.

Patrick

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well, he may not "bash" in the sense of hyperbolic vitriol, but he has a position on the matter:
> 
> https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism
> 
> In other words, per his own words, Calvinism is _incoherent_, _irrational_, _makes God the author of sin_, _robs man of free agency_, and is _farcical_.
> 
> Seems to me _bash_ is probably an accurate descriptor, despite flowery language.



Understood, but he doesn't do so in this book.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Indeed.
> 
> I profit much from reading Craig and many others that I disagree with, for how else could I make such a statement. Unfortunately, not a few disagree with so and so having never taken the time to fully digest their writings, contrary to taking every word captive for the glory of God.
> 
> Patrick



Indeed. We must read critically and through the lens of biblical truth, but read we should. Like many of us, when I first heard of open theism, I was horrified. Regardless, I decided to read some works by Greg Boyd on the subject. I came away still horrified, but with a better understanding of what open theists actually believe. This has enabled me to better refute their position because I am able to attack their actual arguments and not just the straw men that some have constructed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist

Reading how Craig uses analytical theology really sharpened my own thinking skills in how I break down an opposing argument.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well, he may not "bash" in the sense of hyperbolic vitriol, but he has a position on the matter:
> 
> https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism
> 
> In other words, per his own words, Calvinism is _incoherent_, _irrational_, _makes God the author of sin_, _robs man of free agency_, and is _farcical_.
> 
> Seems to me _bash_ is probably an accurate descriptor, despite flowery language.


He does seem to have a real ax to grind with Reformed/Calvinist theology in regards to salvation and free will.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> One of the worst qualities of many reformed Christians is a refusal to read anything that might disagree with their positions. Yes, William Lane Craig is not reformed, and so yes, there are many reformed positions with which he will disagree. Regardless, there is much profit in reading works written by those outside of our particular tribe, if for no other reason than better understanding those with whom we disagree. Plus, we might actually learn something new.


Agree with that assessment, as its good to read and at least varying theologies within the Body of Christ, such as Arminian/Charismatic/Dispensational for example, in order to know what fellow Christians believe and why they see it that way.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> Indeed. We must read critically and through the lens of biblical truth, but read we should. Like many of us, when I first heard of open theism, I was horrified. Regardless, I decided to read some works by Greg Boyd on the subject. I came away still horrified, but with a better understanding of what open theists actually believe. This has enabled me to better refute their position because I am able to attack their actual arguments and not just the straw men that some have constructed.


I think that many Calvinists and Arminians would do well to read through a good st of what each side really holds the scriptures teaching to us.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I think that many Calvinists and Arminians would do well to read through a good st of what each side really holds the scriptures teaching to us.



That's mostly what I do. I avoid modern Reformed literature for the most part. Most Arminians, though, don't write systematic theologies today.

Most of my reading is in the area of substance metaphysics, philosophy of mind, medieval theology, and the church fathers.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's mostly what I do. I avoid modern Reformed literature for the most part. Most Arminians, though, don't write systematic theologies today.
> 
> Most of my reading is in the area of substance metaphysics, philosophy of mind, medieval theology, and the church fathers.


I think Norman Geisler would be the modern Arminian ST to read and study to get their viewpoints.


----------



## earl40

I have to double up on my BP meds if I read too much of the other guys.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> I think Norman Geisler would be the modern Arminian ST to read and study to get their viewpoints.



Geisler holds to eternal security, so he isn't an Arminian.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Bill The Baptist said:


> One of the worst qualities of many reformed Christians is a refusal to read anything that might disagree with their positions. Yes, William Lane Craig is not reformed, and so yes, there are many reformed positions with which he will disagree. Regardless, there is much profit in reading works written by those outside of our particular tribe, if for no other reason than better understanding those with whom we disagree. Plus, we might actually learn something new.



I see this a lot, but, frankly, I have a hard time recommending someone immerse themselves in books that teach serious error or even damnable heresy. If you are a pastor or teacher who has a calling to apologetics/polemics in the pulpit and in private you ought to be well grounded in the faith and will need to know what errors you may encounter so that can be a different story. For the average Reformed lay-person--they may be better read than your typical American but few have even scratched the surface of the greatest, most edifying texts in our own tradition. Why spend time reading Craig when you could read Gurnall? Or Boyd when you could read Turretin? The old adage about how the Treasury officials learn to detect counterfeit bills stands. 

Some laypersons, like Jacob, have read so extensively that there is value in them branching out. My experience, however, is that most people need prompting just to read our own literature. I've actually read this book twice and I don't think I would even the first time if I had it all to do over again. It makes serious errors in theology proper. The time spent on relativity is interesting and a mental workout, but it's of limited value to anyone but a philosopher of religion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

TheOldCourse said:


> I see this a lot, but, frankly, I have a hard time recommending someone immerse themselves in books that teach serious error or even damnable heresy. If you are a pastor or teacher who has a calling to apologetics/polemics in the pulpit and in private you ought to be well grounded in the faith and will need to know what errors you may encounter so that can be a different story. For the average Reformed lay-person--they may be better read than your typical American but few have even scratched the surface of the greatest, most edifying texts in our own tradition. Why spend time reading Craig when you could read Gurnall? Or Boyd when you could read Turretin? The old adage about how the Treasury officials learn to detect counterfeit bills stands.
> 
> Some laypersons, like Jacob, have read so extensively that there is value in them branching out. My experience, however, is that most people need prompting just to read our own literature. I've actually read this book twice and I don't think I would even the first time if I had it all to do over again. It makes serious errors in theology proper. The time spent on relativity is interesting and a mental workout, but it's of limited value to anyone but a philosopher of religion.



Depends on what your goal in reading is. If it is to grow in the faith, then I probably wouldn't go to Craig first. If it is to understand current apologetical discussions regarding Time and divine properties, then you have to go to Craig, no way around it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse

BayouHuguenot said:


> Depends on what your goal in reading is. If it is to grow in the faith, then I probably wouldn't go to Craig first. If it is to understand current apologetical discussions regarding Time and divine properties, then you have to go to Craig, no way around it.



Indeed. I don't have any problem with your reading of them and enjoy your brief reviews/synopses. I hope you didn't take it as a criticism--it wasn't meant as such though perhaps it was worded infelicitously. My post was regarding the encouragement to your average Reformed laypersons to read works advocating error when so few make time to read even the best works advocating truth and tending towards spiritual edification.


----------



## RamistThomist

TheOldCourse said:


> Indeed. I don't have any problem with your reading of them and enjoy your brief reviews/synopses. I hope you didn't take it as a criticism--it wasn't meant as such though perhaps it was worded infelicitously. My post was regarding the encouragement to your average Reformed laypersons to read works advocating error when so few make time to read even the best works advocating truth and tending towards spiritual edification.



No problem here. And Craig's works are often so technical that I doubt the average layman would read much of them. I almost didn't finish this book because it was too sciency.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> No problem here. And Craig's works are often so technical that I doubt the average layman would read much of them. I almost didn't finish this book because it was too sciency.


His take on Middle Knowledge has left me confused though, as he seems to still want to somehow preserve full and real free will?


----------



## Dachaser

TheOldCourse said:


> I see this a lot, but, frankly, I have a hard time recommending someone immerse themselves in books that teach serious error or even damnable heresy. If you are a pastor or teacher who has a calling to apologetics/polemics in the pulpit and in private you ought to be well grounded in the faith and will need to know what errors you may encounter so that can be a different story. For the average Reformed lay-person--they may be better read than your typical American but few have even scratched the surface of the greatest, most edifying texts in our own tradition. Why spend time reading Craig when you could read Gurnall? Or Boyd when you could read Turretin? The old adage about how the Treasury officials learn to detect counterfeit bills stands.
> 
> Some laypersons, like Jacob, have read so extensively that there is value in them branching out. My experience, however, is that most people need prompting just to read our own literature. I've actually read this book twice and I don't think I would even the first time if I had it all to do over again. It makes serious errors in theology proper. The time spent on relativity is interesting and a mental workout, but it's of limited value to anyone but a philosopher of religion.


I think that it is best to get really grounded before anything else in the Bible, and then read and study through solid reformed and Baptist writers, and then branch outwards from there.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Geisler holds to eternal security, so he isn't an Arminian.


Most who would hold to a form of it do hold to eternal security though.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> His take on Middle Knowledge has left me confused though, as he seems to still want to somehow preserve full and real free will?



Middle Knowledge gives the Molinist what he has asked for: an autonomous man.


----------



## KGP

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/molinism-vs.-calvinism



Point number 3 seems the most immediately out of place here.
Is it so hard for these folks to conceive that free will is not necessary to constitute real accountability?

God is continually at work restraining the evil of men. God does not make men to be evil; they are evil, and he minute by minute restrains their evil; he determines the bounds of evil and decides how far they will run in the way of their evil desires. "God moves people to choose evil" - no, people ARE evil, and God directs and restrains their evil. They are neither prompted by God, nor by the Holy Spirit, nor by their conscience unto these deceitful deeds, but by the mystery of evil within themselves and the love of darkness do men carry out their evil actions.

At this point, God is not the source of evil, but rather the immediate cause of restraint. Should God see fit to let men go and not restrain them; either to accomplish some task he wills to accomplish, or to make manifest and more obvious on the earth the greatness of evil that lies within men, or to express more fully his displeasure and wrath upon sin by abandoning the sinner more fully unto his captor (as he is a slave to sin and the devil); then who can object? On what grounds should anyone complain, that God should not leave off with men who hate him and spurn him moment by moment?

Until the 'problem of evil' becomes more than just an intriguing theological riddle to solve, the absolute sovereignty of God will remain a difficult pill to swallow.


----------



## Dachaser

KGP said:


> Point number 3 seems the most immediately out of place here.
> Is it so hard for these folks to conceive that free will is not necessary to constitute real accountability?
> 
> God is continually at work restraining the evil of men. God does not make men to be evil; they are evil, and he minute by minute restrains their evil; he determines the bounds of evil and decides how far they will run in the way of their evil desires. "God moves people to choose evil" - no, people ARE evil, and God directs and restrains their evil. They are neither prompted by God, nor by the Holy Spirit, nor by their conscience unto these deceitful deeds, but by the mystery of evil within themselves and the love of darkness do men carry out their evil actions.
> 
> At this point, God is not the source of evil, but rather the immediate cause of restraint. Should God see fit to let men go and not restrain them; either to accomplish some task he wills to accomplish, or to make manifest and more obvious on the earth the greatness of evil that lies within men, or to express more fully his displeasure and wrath upon sin by abandoning the sinner more fully unto his captor (as he is a slave to sin and the devil); then who can object? On what grounds should anyone complain, that God should not leave off with men who hate him and spurn him moment by moment?
> 
> Until the 'problem of evil' becomes more than just an intriguing theological riddle to solve, the absolute sovereignty of God will remain a difficult pill to swallow.


God predestined Judas to be the Christ betrayer, but Judas also freely accepted to fulfill that role/task. God did not have to force Judas to do that, nor make him a mindless robot.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Most who would hold to a form of it do hold to eternal security though.



Not really. Traditional Arminianism denied eternal security. Modern day Arminians, like Wesleyans, deny it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> His take on Middle Knowledge has left me confused though, as he seems to still want to somehow preserve full and real free will?



When analytic philosophers use the phrase "free will," they mean agent causation. That means that I, as a personal agent, act. My actions are not caused by prior events. That's fine as far as it stands. Where we disagree with him is that I deny that I can freely will my salvation.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> When analytic philosophers use the phrase "free will," they mean agent causation. That means that I, as a personal agent, act. My actions are not caused by prior events. That's fine as far as it stands. Where we disagree with him is that I deny that I can freely will my salvation.


Only God though has absolute free will.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Not really. Traditional Arminianism denied eternal security. Modern day Arminians, like Wesleyans, deny it.


Many who claim free will salvation though hold to eternal security, and I think even the one who they claim founded that theology was open minded on that issue.


----------



## earl40

BayouHuguenot said:


> Depends on what your goal in reading is. If it is to grow in the faith, then I probably wouldn't go to Craig first. If it is to understand current apologetical discussions regarding Time and divine properties, then you have to go to Craig, no way around it.



I would in no way recommend Craig for understanding Time or Divine Properties. Now to understand Craig's incorrect understanding of such I can understand.


----------



## RamistThomist

earl40 said:


> I would in no way recommend Craig for understanding Time or Divine Properties. Now to understand Craig's incorrect understanding of such I can understand.



I think he is confused on simplicity, as he sees all models of Simplicity as being variants of Thomism, yet Richards' book _The Untamed God _clears that problem.

His take on Time isn't that bad. We all hold to a tensed view of time, so I don't see the problem.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Many who claim free will salvation though hold to eternal security, and I think even the one who they claim founded that theology was open minded on that issue.



Traditional Arminism registered problems with perseverance. That was part of the reason for Dordt.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Only God though has absolute free will.



No one would deny that.


----------



## RamistThomist

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one would deny that.



I take that back. God doesn't have absolute freedom. For example, he isn't free to create a world in which he does not exist. He isn't free to cease to exist.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> I take that back. God doesn't have absolute freedom. For example, he isn't free to create a world in which he does not exist. He isn't free to cease to exist.


He is free to always do what would be consistent with his nature and attributes.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one would deny that.


Some holding to Open Theism and free will salvation seem to do that though.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> Traditional Arminism registered problems with perseverance. That was part of the reason for Dordt.


They seem to hold to some form of eternal security though for the believer.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Dachaser said:


> Some holding to Open Theism and free will salvation seem to do that though.



Open theism posits that God can only have foreknowledge of that which he ordains, which is similar to the reformed position. The difference is that open theists deny that God ordains everything that comes to pass, and thus does not have foreknowledge of the free, undetermined actions of men. While this certainly limits God, they would likely still affirm that God has absolute free will.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> Open theism posits that God can only have foreknowledge of that which he ordains, which is similar to the reformed position. The difference is that open theists deny that God ordains everything that comes to pass, and thus does not have foreknowledge of the free, undetermined actions of men. While this certainly limits God, they would likely still affirm that God has absolute free will.


So according to them God has real free will, but no longer all knowing?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Dachaser said:


> So according to them God has real free will, but no longer all knowing?



I think we can make a good argument that open theism effectively eliminates God’s freedom, but they likely wouldn’t phrase it that way. Having read quite a bit of work by open theists, they basically argue that God ordains some things, and other things he does not. The things he ordains he has foreknowledge of and the things he does not ordain, he does not have foreknowledge of.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> They seem to hold to some form of eternal security though for the believer.



How? Vorstinus and others specifically called that doctrine into question.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> He is free to always do what would be consistent with his nature and attributes.



That's not absolute freedom. That freedom is limited, if only by the above caveats.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

BayouHuguenot said:


> How? Vorstinus and others specifically called that doctrine into question.



Many Calvinists seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the various strains of non-Calvinism, however not all non-Calvinists are necessarily Arminian, at least not in the proper sense.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> So according to them God has real free will, but no longer all knowing?


You may find this worth a read:
https://www.puritanboard.com/resources/open-theism-debate.27/


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> I think we can make a good argument that open theism effectively eliminates God’s freedom, but they likely wouldn’t phrase it that way. Having read quite a bit of work by open theists, they basically argue that God ordains some things, and other things he does not. The things he ordains he has foreknowledge of and the things he does not ordain, he does not have foreknowledge of.


So God is allowing some future events to unfold based upon our free will responses per them, so he literally is blind to seeing it until it really happens, including salvation?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> How? Vorstinus and others specifically called that doctrine into question.


Didn't Jacobus Arminius himself state though that this was not ruled out? Could even to him be eternally secured?


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not absolute freedom. That freedom is limited, if only by the above caveats.


It is though, as God Himself cannot lie, so is limited to doing only what is consistent to Himself based upon attributes and nature.


----------



## Dachaser

Bill The Baptist said:


> Many Calvinists seem to be incapable of distinguishing between the various strains of non-Calvinism, however not all non-Calvinists are necessarily Arminian, at least not in the proper sense.


I would say that there are really few classic arminians in theology, as most of them would be more semi-Pel in their thinking.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You may find this worth a read:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/resources/open-theism-debate.27/


Thanks


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> So God is allowing some future events to unfold based upon our free will responses per them, so he literally is blind to seeing it until it really happens, including salvation?


David,

Please review the debate content at this post:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/william-lane-craig-time-and-eternity.94333/page-2#post-1151354

Open theism assumes God does not know the future for it has not yet happened, and makes God to be but the _Survivor®_ God, Outwitting, Outlasting, and Outplaying His autonomous creatures by probabilistically anticipating what they may do before He actually knows what they will do. Since the open theist views God as really, really smart, He can _anticipate _our next moves and plan accordingly. Of course, sometimes God just gets it wrong, but can adjust His plans accordingly. After all, God is a _Master Chess Player_ and can think ahead many moves. Sigh.

For the open theist, God discursively learns new things as He accretes new knowledge based upon what His autonomous creatures do. In effect, the God of Abraham genuinely knew less (epistemologically speaking) than God knows right now.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> David,
> 
> Please review the debate content at this post:
> https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/william-lane-craig-time-and-eternity.94333/page-2#post-1151354
> 
> Open theism assumes God does not know the future for it has not yet happened, and makes God to be but the _Survivor®_ God, Outwitting, Outlasting, and Outplaying His autonomous creatures by probabilistically anticipating what they may do before He actually knows what they will do. Since the open theist views God as really, really smart, He can _anticipate _our next moves and plan accordingly. Of course, sometimes God just gets it wrong, but can adjust His plans accordingly. After all, God is a _Master Chess Player_ and can think ahead many moves. Sigh.
> 
> For the open theist, God discursively learns new things as He accretes new knowledge based upon what His autonomous creatures do. In effect, the God of Abraham genuinely knew less (epistemologically speaking) than God knows right now.


That description would to me be better suited towards Satan, for while the Devil cannot know the future, he can anticipate, and he has plenty of time to observe human behavior.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Didn't Jacobus Arminius himself state though that this was not ruled out? Could even to him be eternally secured?



He said the issue needed more study. Hardly a ringing defense.


----------



## ZackF

Bill The Baptist said:


> One of the worst qualities of many reformed Christians is a refusal to read anything that might disagree with their positions. Yes, William Lane Craig is not reformed, and so yes, there are many reformed positions with which he will disagree. Regardless, there is much profit in reading works written by those outside of our particular tribe, if for no other reason than better understanding those with whom we disagree. Plus, we might actually learn something new.



I’ve always thought Reformed were better at reading contrary positions.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

ZackF said:


> I’ve always thought Reformed were better at reading contrary positions.



Reformed scholars and pastors, yes. Reformed laymen, not so much.


----------



## Dachaser

BayouHuguenot said:


> He said the issue needed more study. Hardly a ringing defense.


True, but at least he was not sure that real Christians could unlose their salvation, and many today who claim to not be Calvinists also would hold to eternal security of the believer.


----------

