How many "logical moments in divine omniscience" would you say there are there in Calvinism? Probably just one, I would guess. Just "knowledge." As in, God has knowledge of the future because he decreed the future would unfold the way he has knowledge of.
I don't think the question is all that important, but I would say God has natural knowledge and free knowledge. He has natural knowledge of how nature would naturally unfold and free knowledge of every choice every person will ever make.
You can stipulate that God knows every choice every person will ever make, but many freewill theists deny that because it's philosophically irreconcilable with (postulated) human libertarian freedom.
Two, natural and free. The former is knowledge of possibilities, modal propositions like what must and could be. The latter is knowledge of what *will* be given God's decision to create. You're using those terms in ways no one has. "Natural knowledge" isn't about "nature." And your use of the subjective "would" also introduces problems.
Thank you. Doing a little quick reading, I think I affirm God's natural knowledge, but deny that free knowledge and middle knowledge are a thing. Instead, I would probably affirm two logical moments in God's omniscience. God's natural knowledge and God's perceptualistic knowledge. Perceptualistic knowledge is simply that God knows all things that are going to happen. God's perceptualistic knowledge can be described as the knowledge "God saw".
I would affirm that God has natural knowledge, but with the understanding that human free choices are not items of fact that are knowable in a natural knowledge sort of way. They are, however, perfectly knowable in a perceptualistic sort of way.
You defined perceptualist knowledge the same way free knowledge is defined. Calvinists don't include actual free actions in the set of things God knows via natural knowledge.
You can affirm that God knows what free agents would do or will so long has you pretend that libertarian freedom is consistent with God's foreknowledge and counterfactual knowledge, philosophical objections to the contrary notwithstanding. Just close your eyes, tap your heels, count to ten, and hope to be back in Kansas before suppertime.
But I read an online definition of free knowledge at carm.org that said, "The free act of God’s will where He, after His free act of creation, knows all things that are going to happen and that this knowledge is contingent upon His free creative will."
"And that his knowledge is contingent upon His free creative will" does not sound like something I would say.
Good, then you have the creature determining God's states. Keep showing us the defects of Lutheranism.
Free knowledge is God's knowledge of the actual works. What it's *based on* will differ among Calvinists, Arminians, etc. Thus, you still affirmed free knowledge, you're just differing with us about its ground.
You say God's knowledge metaphysically depends on the creature. The creature is the grounds or truth maker of god's knowledge rather than God himself, his will or decree. This contrasts with the WCF in ch 2.2, which gives God his true honor and glory
God's knowledge metaphysically depends on the creature all the time in the Bible. That's just the way it is. That is how we are meant to understand God. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."
Asserting that a creature can't be grounds of God's knowledge does not really have an effect on me.
The Epitome sections on the scope of God's knowledge that you cite is actually consistent with open theism. The question isn't whether you don't have a problem denying aseity and affirming that God metaphysically depends on the creature, it's whether you can do that while affirming confessional Lutheranism. For example, surely you don't think God's knowledge of who will have saving faith is grounded in the creature. Does Lutheranism teach that God elects on the basis of man's foreseen faith?! Second, it's hard to see how contingent facts in time metaphysically ground God's timeless beliefs. How does that work exactly?
There is nothing inconsistent with libertarian freedom and God's foreknowledge. "God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth."
I struggle with what "counterfactual knowledge" even is. It sounds like Middle Knowledge, but it isn't. If it isn't, then perhaps it is the content of Middle Knowledge pushed back into natural knowledge. But Paul Manata just said Calvinists don't include actual free actions in the set of things God knows via natural knowledge.
Perhaps a question would help. At what logical moment in divine omniscience does counterfactual knowledge fall under, natural or free knowledge?
Also, you're 'gotcha' is due to conceptual confusion. I said *actual* free actions are included in God's free knowledge. This is consistent with *counterfactuals* (i.e., contrary to actual fact) being a part of natural knowledge).
Ordinarily unpreventably. But God could speak a word, change the universe and prevent me from A. No sweat. God would never be less than omniscient. There would never be a time he knew less then every fact there is to know about the universe as it exists--before and after he changed it.
You're ignoring the first premise lol. If God preventing you from A-ing, he hardly knew that you will A! It's clear you're shooting from the hip here. Stop.
Notice again that you're confusing factual and counterfactual. You knew how the book *would* end had you ended it that way. But you didn't know that that's how the book *actually* ended given it didn't actually end that way! smh
Hey. Your post was enlightening. I understand better where you are coming from. However I still disagree.
Up until 1997 I knew Han shot first. I had knowledge about a fact. It wasn't knowledge about a counterfactual or knowledge about a falsehood. Han actually did shoot first.
Now I know Greedo shot first. That is a fact I have knowledge of.
I am not confusing factual and counterfactual, you just aren't thinking fourth dimensionally.
How many "logical moments in divine omniscience" would you say there are there in Calvinism? Probably just one, I would guess. Just "knowledge." As in, God has knowledge of the future because he decreed the future would unfold the way he has knowledge of.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the question is all that important, but I would say God has natural knowledge and free knowledge. He has natural knowledge of how nature would naturally unfold and free knowledge of every choice every person will ever make.
You can stipulate that God knows every choice every person will ever make, but many freewill theists deny that because it's philosophically irreconcilable with (postulated) human libertarian freedom.
DeleteBut what was the answer to my question? Was I right? Just one logical moment in divine omniscience for Calvinism? I'm mostly just curious.
ReplyDeleteTwo, natural and free. The former is knowledge of possibilities, modal propositions like what must and could be. The latter is knowledge of what *will* be given God's decision to create. You're using those terms in ways no one has. "Natural knowledge" isn't about "nature." And your use of the subjective "would" also introduces problems.
DeleteThank you. Doing a little quick reading, I think I affirm God's natural knowledge, but deny that free knowledge and middle knowledge are a thing. Instead, I would probably affirm two logical moments in God's omniscience. God's natural knowledge and God's perceptualistic knowledge. Perceptualistic knowledge is simply that God knows all things that are going to happen. God's perceptualistic knowledge can be described as the knowledge "God saw".
DeleteI would affirm that God has natural knowledge, but with the understanding that human free choices are not items of fact that are knowable in a natural knowledge sort of way. They are, however, perfectly knowable in a perceptualistic sort of way.
You defined perceptualist knowledge the same way free knowledge is defined. Calvinists don't include actual free actions in the set of things God knows via natural knowledge.
DeleteYou can affirm that God knows what free agents would do or will so long has you pretend that libertarian freedom is consistent with God's foreknowledge and counterfactual knowledge, philosophical objections to the contrary notwithstanding. Just close your eyes, tap your heels, count to ten, and hope to be back in Kansas before suppertime.
DeleteGood.
DeleteBut I read an online definition of free knowledge at carm.org that said, "The free act of God’s will where He, after His free act of creation, knows all things that are going to happen and that this knowledge is contingent upon His free creative will."
"And that his knowledge is contingent upon His free creative will" does not sound like something I would say.
Good, then you have the creature determining God's states. Keep showing us the defects of Lutheranism.
DeleteFree knowledge is God's knowledge of the actual works. What it's *based on* will differ among Calvinists, Arminians, etc. Thus, you still affirmed free knowledge, you're just differing with us about its ground.
iPhone autocorrect: actual works = actual world
DeleteI don't know what God's states are.
DeleteSure you do. His knowledge. Say goodbye to aseity.
DeleteYou say God's knowledge metaphysically depends on the creature. The creature is the grounds or truth maker of god's knowledge rather than God himself, his will or decree. This contrasts with the WCF in ch 2.2, which gives God his true honor and glory
Deletehttp://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_02
God's knowledge metaphysically depends on the creature all the time in the Bible. That's just the way it is. That is how we are meant to understand God. "The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart."
DeleteAsserting that a creature can't be grounds of God's knowledge does not really have an effect on me.
So you're an open theist rather than a Lutheran.
Delete"So you're an open theist rather than a Lutheran."
DeleteI believe that is incorrect.
See the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article XI, especially sections 2, 4, and 11.
The Epitome sections on the scope of God's knowledge that you cite is actually consistent with open theism. The question isn't whether you don't have a problem denying aseity and affirming that God metaphysically depends on the creature, it's whether you can do that while affirming confessional Lutheranism. For example, surely you don't think God's knowledge of who will have saving faith is grounded in the creature. Does Lutheranism teach that God elects on the basis of man's foreseen faith?! Second, it's hard to see how contingent facts in time metaphysically ground God's timeless beliefs. How does that work exactly?
Delete@steve,
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing inconsistent with libertarian freedom and God's foreknowledge. "God saw the earth, and behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted their way on the earth."
I struggle with what "counterfactual knowledge" even is. It sounds like Middle Knowledge, but it isn't. If it isn't, then perhaps it is the content of Middle Knowledge pushed back into natural knowledge. But Paul Manata just said Calvinists don't include actual free actions in the set of things God knows via natural knowledge.
Perhaps a question would help.
At what logical moment in divine omniscience does counterfactual knowledge fall under, natural or free knowledge?
Here's the basic argument for the inconsistency
DeleteNecessarily (if God knows you will A at t, then you will A at t).
Unpreventably (God knows you will A at t)
Unpreventably (you will A at t).
For more see my post here
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/04/classical-ockhamist-response-to-dilemma.html?m=1
And on eternity solution see here
http://philpapers.org/rec/WIDAPF
Also, you're 'gotcha' is due to conceptual confusion. I said *actual* free actions are included in God's free knowledge. This is consistent with *counterfactuals* (i.e., contrary to actual fact) being a part of natural knowledge).
Delete"Unpreventably (you will A at t)."
DeleteOrdinarily unpreventably. But God could speak a word, change the universe and prevent me from A. No sweat. God would never be less than omniscient. There would never be a time he knew less then every fact there is to know about the universe as it exists--before and after he changed it.
You're ignoring the first premise lol. If God preventing you from A-ing, he hardly knew that you will A! It's clear you're shooting from the hip here. Stop.
DeleteI knew how the book would end before I edited it and changed the ending. How does that mean that I hardly knew how the book would end?
DeleteI'll stop. You aren't really listening.
What are you talking about? You think someone can *know* that p where p is *false*?
DeleteI'll stop. You're incapable of playing along.
Notice again that you're confusing factual and counterfactual. You knew how the book *would* end had you ended it that way. But you didn't know that that's how the book *actually* ended given it didn't actually end that way! smh
DeleteHey. Your post was enlightening. I understand better where you are coming from. However I still disagree.
ReplyDeleteUp until 1997 I knew Han shot first. I had knowledge about a fact. It wasn't knowledge about a counterfactual or knowledge about a falsehood. Han actually did shoot first.
Now I know Greedo shot first. That is a fact I have knowledge of.
I am not confusing factual and counterfactual, you just aren't thinking fourth dimensionally.