Foreknowledge

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dennis1963

Puritan Board Freshman
I was recently discussing foreknowledge with an Arminian friend, I agree with the historical reformed Calvinistic view. He sent me this site.
Whats everyone's take on this, though I am sure it comes as no surprise.

It seems Arminians have a library of resources to counteract reformed theology. How in the world do you show someone the truth, good grief, most will not even consider it.

Foreknowledge Defined | Society of Evangelical Arminians
 
I was recently discussing foreknowledge with an Arminian friend, I agree with the historical reformed Calvinistic view. He sent me this site.
Whats everyone's take on this, though I am sure it comes as no surprise.

It seems Arminians have a library of resources to counteract reformed theology. How in the world do you show someone the truth, good grief, most will not even consider it.

Foreknowledge Defined | Society of Evangelical Arminians

The devil has a quiver full of many arrows, but they cannot penetrate, harm, or deflect the truth of God.

No matter what, armour up and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for the victory over all kinds of sin and error, is already yours, by faith in Him. (Ephesians 6:11-18)
 
At first blush it seems to me that God foreknowing a decision of libertarian free-will is contradictory. Either "foreknowledge" or "libertarian free-will" has to give way to the other. At least Pinnock is consistent.
 
I just had a rather lively discussion with a good friend of mine who is an Arminian, and the point that he kept coming back to is the idea that if God chooses everything, that makes us puppets. I did my very best to show him that this is not the case. What was maddening is that he accepts the sovereignty of God and even the concept that there may be elect, but he says that such knowledge is not practical, and we would be better off if we focused on man's choices.

All we, as Reformed individuals, can do is put forth the biblical truth and pray. I think we all were arminians ourselves at one point before God graciously matured us, so we can't boast about being better.
 
There is no hope at all philosophically for those who wish to retain free will and omniscience. If God knows that S will do X in the future, then it is true that S will do X in the future, by the definition of knowledge. And if it presently true that S will do X, then S is incapable of changing that truth and therefore is "forced" to do X. Pinnock figured this out and unfortunately apostatized. Anyway, the best arguments I've heard that reconcile omniscience with free will are the following:

(1) Just as a friend can know what we will do in a situation without impinging on our freedom, so God can know. But this fails because the friend's knowledge is not infallible; i.e. the friend cannot truly know what you will do. And if he did know infallibly, then it would be the case that you did not do so freely.

(2) God is outside time, and therefore to speak of God's knowing "future" events is nonsense. But this fails because God clearly has an understanding of time, as shown pervasively throughout the Bible with His covenantal interacting with His people. Or, in other words, that God is outside time does not mean that God cannot comprehend time.

Of course, the easiest way to disprove Arminianism is with Scripture. If only it were as easy to break through people's hearts; hence, prayer is paramount.
 
Error, when followed logically, will come to a point where it clearly conflicts with Scripture. However, that alone doesn't prevent it from being internally consistent.
 
Error can be logically consistent.

We don't think so . . .at some point the truth will break down the erroneous argument.

Thus the teaching and admonition of Ephesians 6:11-18.

I think you are confusing the idea of error and consistency. Consistency is maintaining the error through all arguments. Hence the error is logically consistent.

We have never debated an erroneous view, that did not have to change or at least equivocate upon its original premise, when confronted with the absolute and Scriptural truths of God.

It is the nature of the lying beast, to change its colors, as needs be . . .
 
We don't think so . . .at some point the truth will break down the erroneous argument.

Thus the teaching and admonition of Ephesians 6:11-18.

I think you are confusing the idea of error and consistency. Consistency is maintaining the error through all arguments. Hence the error is logically consistent.

We have never debated an erroneous view, that did not have to change or at least equivocate upon its original premise, when confronted with the absolute and Scriptural truths of God.

It is the nature of the lying beast, to change its colors, as needs be . . .

Obviously we aren't talking about the same thing.
 
I think you are confusing the idea of error and consistency. Consistency is maintaining the error through all arguments. Hence the error is logically consistent.

We have never debated an erroneous view, that did not have to change or at least equivocate upon its original premise, when confronted with the absolute and Scriptural truths of God.

It is the nature of the lying beast, to change its colors, as needs be . . .

Obviously we aren't talking about the same thing.

We thought we were talking about the false teaching Pinnock (as example) represents. Right?

Pinnock does not sustain logical consistency, when confronted with the Holy Scripture and the true gospel of grace.

His erroneous premises break down under the weight of truth.
 
We have never debated an erroneous view, that did not have to change or at least equivocate upon its original premise, when confronted with the absolute and Scriptural truths of God.

It is the nature of the lying beast, to change its colors, as needs be . . .

Obviously we aren't talking about the same thing.

We thought we were talking about the false teaching Pinnock (as example) represents. Right?

Pinnock does not sustain logical consistency, when confronted with the Holy Scripture and the true gospel of grace.

His erroneous premises break down under the weight of truth.

We agree with that. We were simply saying that he is consistent with his own (false) premises.
 
We have never debated an erroneous view, that did not have to change or at least equivocate upon its original premise, when confronted with the absolute and Scriptural truths of God.

It is the nature of the lying beast, to change its colors, as needs be . . .

Obviously we aren't talking about the same thing.

We thought we were talking about the false teaching Pinnock (as example) represents. Right?

Pinnock does not sustain logical consistency, when confronted with the Holy Scripture and the true gospel of grace.

His erroneous premises break down under the weight of truth.

Look closely, I was not commenting on the truth-value of his premises or his conclusions. I was making the point that Pinnock rejects the omniscience of God thereby giving libertarian free-will free reign. He does not appeal to omniscience in any of his arguments. He is consistent in that, wrong, but consistent. The Arminian's inconsistency (contradiction) is at one moment he appeals to divine omniscience and at the next moment he denies omniscience when he appeals to libertarian free-will.
 
Obviously we aren't talking about the same thing.

We thought we were talking about the false teaching Pinnock (as example) represents. Right?

Pinnock does not sustain logical consistency, when confronted with the Holy Scripture and the true gospel of grace.

His erroneous premises break down under the weight of truth.

We agree with that. We were simply saying that he is consistent with his own (false) premises.

Until his premises collapse from being proven illogical.
 
Confessor said:
We agree with that. We were simply saying that he is consistent with his own (false) premises.

Until his premises collapse as being proven illogical.

We can prove his premises inconsistent with Scripture, but they not themselves illogical.

The Holy Scriptures are the product of "Logos;" thus we contend any philosophy or human thought that departs from Holy Scripture, cannot prove to be consistently logical, for any length of time.

An erroneous premise may provide a long-lasting argument, that appears logical, but eventually it will prove to be only temporal and illogical in the light of Godly truth.
 
Until his premises collapse as being proven illogical.

We can prove his premises inconsistent with Scripture, but they not themselves illogical.

The Holy Scriptures are the product of "Logos;" thus we contend any philosophy or human thought that departs from Holy Scripture, cannot prove to be consistently logical, for any length of time.

An erroneous premise may provide a long-lasting argument, that appears logical, but eventually it will prove to be only temporal and illogical in the light of Godly truth.

An argument can be valid and consistent without the conclusion necessarily being true.
 
We can prove his premises inconsistent with Scripture, but they not themselves illogical.

The Holy Scriptures are the product of "Logos;" thus we contend any philosophy or human thought that departs from Holy Scripture, cannot prove to be consistently logical, for any length of time.

An erroneous premise may provide a long-lasting argument, that appears logical, but eventually it will prove to be only temporal and illogical in the light of Godly truth.

An argument can be valid and consistent without the conclusion necessarily being true.

So how does this bleak assessment help to answer the question of the OP?
 
The Holy Scriptures are the product of "Logos;" thus we contend any philosophy or human thought that departs from Holy Scripture, cannot prove to be consistently logical, for any length of time.

An erroneous premise may provide a long-lasting argument, that appears logical, but eventually it will prove to be only temporal and illogical in the light of Godly truth.

An argument can be valid and consistent without the conclusion necessarily being true.

So how does this bleak assessment help to answer the question of the OP?

:) I'm afraid it doesn't. This was all a rabbit trail off the comment that Pinnock was consistent with his false premises.
 
The Holy Scriptures are the product of "Logos;" thus we contend any philosophy or human thought that departs from Holy Scripture, cannot prove to be consistently logical, for any length of time.

An erroneous premise may provide a long-lasting argument, that appears logical, but eventually it will prove to be only temporal and illogical in the light of Godly truth.

An argument can be valid and consistent without the conclusion necessarily being true.

So how does this bleak assessment help to answer the question of the OP?

Return to my post in #3. The Arminian attempt to hold to both divine omniscience and libertarian free-will is both inconsistent and contradictory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top