William Lane Craig: Time and Eternity

Status
Not open for further replies.

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Professor
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. :)
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Bill The Baptist

Puritan Board Graduate
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Graduate
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top