Divine Knowledge and Arminianism

[dildaysc]

As you all well know, the controversy between the Calvinists and the Arminians runs much deeper than the doctrines of grace (as precious as they are!). Ultimately, the conceptions of God differ.

See Muller's excellent monograph on Arminius.

I have just gotten in De Moor's treatment of Divine Knowledge. How God's knowledge is viewed has profound implications for this debate.

 

[J.L. Allen]

I’ve heard it said that the only consistent Arminians are open theists.

 

[Tom Hart]

I’ve heard it said that the only consistent Arminians are open theists.

Open Theists aren't consistent, either, though, since they claim at the same time to be Christian.

 

[J.L. Allen]

Open Theists aren't consistent, either, though, since they claim at the same time to be Christian.

I agree. Anything that compromises the truth must be inconsistent in some way.

 

[Reformed Quest]

See Muller's excellent monograph on Arminius.

Okay, you piqued my interest, but Muller’s 300 page paperback book is $50 used at Amazon . . . and no Kindle or Logos version available. Drat.

 

[dildaysc]

If you have a library, especially a university library, they can probably get the book for you on loan.

Just an idea...

 

[Reformed Quest]

If you have a library, especially a university library, they can probably get the book for you on loan.

Just an idea...

thank you.

 

[dildaysc]

This morning I began the translation of the section most germane to this discussion: https://www.fromreformationtoreform...od-s-knowledge-of-free-and-contingent-futures .

In what follows, De Moor will begin to address the Socinians and Remonstrants...

 

[RamistThomist]

Okay, you piqued my interest, but Muller’s 300 page paperback book is $50 used at Amazon . . . and no Kindle or Logos version available. Drat.

That's basically the story to almost every Muller book, although some are on Logos and Kindle.

 

[dildaysc]

This morning, De Moor launches into the debate with the Socinians with respect to God's knowledge of Free and Contingent Futures.

 

[dildaysc]

God's Knowledge of Vision, and of Simple Intelligence...

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Arminians also do an injustice to the work of the whole Trinity in our salvation: Ebenezer Erskine on Arminianism and the Trinity.

 

[Dachaser]

I’ve heard it said that the only consistent Arminians are open theists.

How so?

 

[J.L. Allen]

How so?

If your choices determine God’s eternal plan, He must submit to your will. Granted, He’s offered salvation to you, but His lack sovereignty means He has no real power in your life. He’s just really good at reacting.

 

[Taylor]

How so?

Because in the Arminian system (as I and many others see and understand it), it is a grave inconsistency to repudiate biblical determinism and yet still affirm absolute and infallible divine foreknowledge, as most Arminians do. So, historically, many Arminians, including Arminius himself, dabbled in the scientia media ("middle knowledge") doctrine. In the end, however, the only way to do away completely with any kind of determinism is to dispense not only with divine sovereignty, but divine foreknowledge as well, because if God knows the future exhaustively and infallibly, then human action is just as determined as in the Calvinistic system. That is why many say that the only consistent Arminianism is Open Theism.

 

[Dachaser]

If your choices determine God’s eternal plan, He must submit to your will. Granted, He’s offered salvation to you, but His lack sovereignty means He has no real power in your life. He’s just really good at reacting.

Yes, as their desire is to maintain real and full free will in order to keeping God in their minds as not playing favorites with us.

 

[dildaysc]

Because in the Arminian system (as I and many others see and understand it), it is a grave inconsistency to repudiate biblical determinism and yet still affirm absolute and infallible divine foreknowledge, as most Arminians do. So, historically, many Arminians, including Arminius himself, dabbled in the scientia media ("middle knowledge") doctrine. In the end, however, the only way to do away completely with any kind of determinism is to dispense not only with divine sovereignty, but divine foreknowledge as well, because if God knows the future exhaustively and infallibly, then human action is just as determined as in the Calvinistic system. That is why many say that the only consistent Arminianism is Open Theism.

This morning I began the translation of De Moor's treatment of Middle Knowledge. I hope to have something posted in the next day or two.

In the meantime, De Moor's assertion and defense of God's Knowledge of Vision and Simple Intelligence...

 

[dildaysc]

Thus begins De Moor's treatment of Middle Knowledge...

 

[dildaysc]

Matters pertaining to the relationship of the Infinite, Eternal, and Unchangeable God to finite, transitory, mutable creatures are difficult.

As we think about and discuss these matters, let us beware of merely verbal disputes...disputes occasioned by confusion over terms, rather than disagreement over actual substance.

De Moor parses the merely verbal dispute among the Reformed over Middle Knowledge.

 

[dildaysc]

Here, we see De Moor in all of his scholastic glory, providing definitions, and clarifying the points of dispute with respect to Middle Knowledge.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I’ve heard it said that the only consistent Arminians are open theists.

While I’m sure most of us on here are sympathetic with this view, it is actually a fairly lazy form of argumentation. The Arminian could just as easily reply that consistent Calvinism renders God the author of evil. Of course there are many great Calvinist responses to this charge, but there are also some fairly competent responses to the charge of open theism by Arminians. Ultimately, we must engage with what our opponents actually confess and not what we think they should confess.

 

[RamistThomist]

While I’m sure most of us on here are sympathetic with this view, it is actually a fairly lazy form of argumentation.

Exactly. I wouldn't try that line of argument with a well-read Molinist. They will feed the argument right back to the person.

 

[J.L. Allen]

While I’m sure most of us on here are sympathetic with this view, it is actually a fairly lazy form of argumentation. The Arminian could just as easily reply that consistent Calvinism renders God the author of evil. Of course there are many great Calvinist responses to this charge, but there are also some fairly competent responses to the charge of open theism by Arminians. Ultimately, we must engage with what our opponents actually confess and not what we think they should confess.

I was supplying a comment on how other people have described Arminianism to me. I don’t come at it this way entirely myself.

 

[jwright82]

I think the central problem is we use words like "sovereignty" and "freewill" in the same way to refer to God and humans, univocity of meaning. Analogical allows us to use the same words in different ways to refer to two different kinds of things or beings. But not completely different, equivocal meaning a la Barth, about said beings.

 

[Dachaser]

I think the central problem is we use words like "sovereignty" and "freewill" in the same way to refer to God and humans, univocity of meaning. Analogical allows us to use the same words in different ways to refer to two different kinds of things or beings. But not completely different, equivocal meaning a la Barth, about said beings.

When one gets to a system where the created beings have the same absolute freewill as God, something is amiss..

 

[TheOldCourse]

Exactly. I wouldn't try that line of argument with a well-read Molinist. They will feed the argument right back to the person.

True, although how many Arminians are well-read Molinists? Maybe on internet discussion boards, but I've never met one in real life. Even the minsters with advanced degrees I've spoken to think Molinism sounds too Calvinist to them, which suggests Open Theism really is the logical outworking of modern evangelical Arminianism.

When I was younger and more into Christian philosophy like Plantinga, Lane Craig, etc., but not well versed in Reformed theology (or the Scriptures), I used to argue for Molinism, against Arminians. I believed it was basically Reformed and so did they.

 

[RamistThomist]

True, although how many Arminians are well-read Molinists? Maybe on internet discussion boards, but I've never met one in real life. Even the minsters with advanced degrees I've spoken to think Molinism sounds too Calvinist to them, which suggests Open Theism really is the logical outworking of modern evangelical Arminianism.

When I was younger and more into Christian philosophy like Plantinga, Lane Craig, etc., but not well versed in Reformed theology (or the Scriptures), I used to argue for Molinism, against Arminians. I believed it was basically Reformed and so did they.

True, Molinism is a different critter than Arminianism.

 

[Taylor]

Ultimately, we must engage with what our opponents actually confess and not what we think they should confess.

I don't think anyone here has said that; I certainly haven't. I have never said that all Arminians are open theists, or that I think they should be. On the contrary, I am merely pointing out that Arminian theology, to maintain itself, must be inconsistent. In that inconsistency I actually rejoice (because it saves them from damnable heresy), but it is inconsistency nonetheless. I haven't "charged" them with open theism. There is a difference between saying that someone is inconsistent with themselves and saying they believe something other than what they actually believe. I have done the former.

Also, just because an argument isn't book-length (that is, overly nuanced) doesn't make it "lazy." I have read both Arminian and Molinist literature at the seminary level, and I still maintain that open theism is simply Arminianism that has obtained all its desires (that is, that has achieved consistency). Again, that is not to say all Arminians are open theists, but it is perfectly legitimate to critique a position's inconsistencies in such a manner. Sure, they can turn the argument around and say that Reformed theology has inconsistencies, as well, but they have to prove it from Scripture.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I don't think anyone here has said that; I certainly haven't. I have never said that all Arminians are open theists, or that I think they should be. On the contrary, I am merely pointing out that Arminian theology, to maintain itself, must be inconsistent. In that inconsistency I actually rejoice (because it saves them from damnable heresy), but it is inconsistency nonetheless. I haven't "charged" them with open theism. There is a difference between saying that someone is inconsistent with themselves and saying they believe something other than what they actually believe. I have done the former.

Also, just because an argument isn't book-length (that is, overly nuanced) doesn't make it "lazy." I have read both Arminian and Molinist literature at the seminary level, and I still maintain that open theism is simply Arminianism that has obtained all its desires (that is, that has achieved consistency). Again, that is not to say all Arminians are open theists, but it is perfectly legitimate to critique a position's inconsistencies in such a manner. Sure, they can turn the argument around and say that Reformed theology has inconsistencies, as well, but they have to prove it from Scripture.

I was not accusing anyone of anything. I was merely assessing a commonly used statement. I simply find these kind of trite statements and formulas to be useless from an argumentation standpoint.

 

[jwright82]

When one gets to a system where the created beings have the same absolute freewill as God, something is amiss..

I know. It seems like idolatry to me. I know they wouldn't agree with me, but it is subtle idolatry. I mean how can you not then move on to the question of evil. If God is "the same" in some way as me, ontological, then why can't I demand an explanation from God. If we're both ontological the same (just different degrees, him the same just much greater) then I should be able understand in detail why he allows evil.

And this is why open theism came about. Now most Arminians would reject open theism but it seems they have to walk a strange line in doing so. I don't have to because I reject a univocal understanding in favor of an analogical understanding. I mean an open theist is a consistent arminian.