RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Most who would hold to a form of it do hold to eternal security though.
His take on Middle Knowledge has left me confused though, as he seems to still want to somehow preserve full and real free will?
Only God though has absolute 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.
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.Not really. Traditional Arminianism denied eternal security. Modern day Arminians, like Wesleyans, deny it.
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.
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.
Only God though has absolute free will.
No one would deny that.
He is free to always do what would be consistent with his nature and attributes.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.
Some holding to Open Theism and free will salvation seem to do that though.No one would deny that.
They seem to hold to some form of eternal security though for the believer.Traditional Arminism registered problems with perseverance. That was part of the reason for Dordt.
Some holding to Open Theism and free will salvation seem to do that though.
So according to them God has real free will, but no longer all knowing?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?
They seem to hold to some form of eternal security though for the believer.
He is free to always do what would be consistent with his nature and attributes.
How? Vorstinus and others specifically called that doctrine into question.
You may find this worth a read:So according to them God has real free will, but no longer all knowing?
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?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.
Didn't Jacobus Arminius himself state though that this was not ruled out? Could even to him be eternally secured?How? Vorstinus and others specifically called that doctrine into question.
It is though, as God Himself cannot lie, so is limited to doing only what is consistent to Himself based upon attributes and nature.That's not absolute freedom. That freedom is limited, if only by the above caveats.
I would say that there are really few classic arminians in theology, as most of them would be more semi-Pel in their thinking.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.
ThanksYou may find this worth a read:
https://www.puritanboard.com/resources/open-theism-debate.27/
David,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?
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.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.
Didn't Jacobus Arminius himself state though that this was not ruled out? Could even to him be eternally secured?
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.
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.He said the issue needed more study. Hardly a ringing defense.