tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3904130838272006157..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: When your number's upRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-7478330103754469442015-03-23T23:12:40.843-04:002015-03-23T23:12:40.843-04:00To express it another way: in Calvinism, an indivi...To express it another way: in Calvinism, an individual is never free to do other than what he was predestined to do. <br /><br />In fatalism, by contrast, the ill-fated individual wasn't predetermined to do anything in particular. Many courses of action are open to him. He is free to do otherwise. <br /><br />Fate may miss the target on many occasions, if the ill-fated individual presents a moving target. <br /><br />However, his stalling tactics merely postpone the inevitable. Fate will always win in the long-run. It's too resourceful. It never sleeps. The ill-fated individual can't keep his guard up 24/7. He has to be lucky every time whereas fate only has to be lucky once. <br /><br />Now a critic might say that Calvinism and fatalism are alike inasmuch as the final outcome unavoidable. True.<br /><br />But just two say two positions are alike in one respect isn't significant. For instance, Islam is monotheistic and Arminianism is monotheistic. Islam believes in prophets and Arminianism believes in prophets. Islam believes in a final judgment and Arminianism believes in a final judgment. <br /><br />Ironically, open theism is fatalistic. Take the popularity of the chess metaphor in open theism. God is the chess master who can beat any human player. However you play the game, God always wins. But in that event, why play at all?<br /><br />Here's Boyd, in his own words:<br /><br />To illustrate, a world class chess master may announce that she shall checkmate you in not more than 13 moves, though she isn’t certain what your moves are going to be. It’s just that because of her superior ability to think through possibilities, she sees that, whatever you choose, this much about the game is settled. In not more than 13 moves, you’re done. This is something like the situation we face with God, but infinitely intensified.<br /><br />God is the infinitely wise chess master. On top of this, God created the rules that govern the chess game we are playing. He may therefore announce a checkmate ages before we are capable of ever imagining how such a prediction could be ensured. Because we with our limited ability to anticipate possibilities cannot see how he makes such a prediction, we might be inclined to suspect that he must somehow foreknow or must have predetermined our future moves in order to make it come to pass. Indeed, we may even suspect that those who believe God doesn’t foreknow or didn’t predetermine our future moves can’t really believe he made this prediction inerrantly! If believing the infinitely wise chess master makes predictions inerrantly is a requirement for belonging to our chess club, we may even lobby to have them removed! But, I submit, all such suspicions are rooted in an anthropomorphic conception of deity. We who have finite intelligence would need to foreknow or predetermine everything about a game of chess to ensure a checkmate this far in advance, but an infinitely intelligent chess player would not.<br /><br />http://reknew.org/2008/01/inerrancy-and-open-theism-are-they-incompatible/stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14038837287048835452015-03-23T17:33:24.221-04:002015-03-23T17:33:24.221-04:00Good points. In addition, Islam has an indetermini...Good points. In addition, Islam has an indeterminist tradition (Mutaziltes) as well as a determinist tradition (Asharites).stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46571009348468475222015-03-23T15:19:51.524-04:002015-03-23T15:19:51.524-04:00There seems to be four purposes for precognition (...There seems to be four purposes for precognition (prophetic prediction) in Scripture:<br /><br />1. Validation of the prophet who makes the prophecy.<br />2. Validation of the cannon of Scripture.<br />3. Encouragement to believers.<br />4. A divinely apparent means to change the beliefs and behaviors of various people by warnings of future events either actual or subjunctive.<br /><br />All are coherent purposes that trade on our epistemic needs.<br /><br />1. How do we know the prophet is from God?<br />2. How do we know the Scriptures are divinely inspired and accurate?<br />3. Knowing that God fulfills his promises, how do we know that our future with God is secure?<br />4. Knowing that God fulfills His promises and our knowledge is limited, what should our response be when he tells us he is going to do something? (God did this with Moses when God "repented" after Moses gave the desired response, and with Nineveh when Jonah only gave them half of the subjunctive. God also did this through the prophets prior to the exile to make an effectual change in their faith during the exile as well as encourage the faithful who remained in the land.)Jim Pembertonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01446388434272680014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22601128258496912782015-03-23T14:40:17.643-04:002015-03-23T14:40:17.643-04:00Thanks, Steve. This gives me much to ponder. One t...Thanks, Steve. This gives me much to ponder. One thing that comes to mind is that the issues in defining fatalism are also problematic for people who charge calvinism with being fatalistic. Even moreso, maybe.<br /><br />I think people bring it up primarily to say that if predestination is true, then human beings are reduced to robots or zombies. But that comes with its own problems and arguments.<br /><br />I wonder if the impersonal nature of fate is also a factor. In fatalism, "fate" seems to be disinterested, impersonal. Whereas the God of the Bible is personal, sovereign. He takes an interest in His creatures and involves Himself in their affairs. It's interesting to note, too, that many consider Islam to be fatalistic and Allah is also considered impersonal.Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91799953150888227232015-03-23T12:10:09.428-04:002015-03-23T12:10:09.428-04:00I don't think there's a uniform definition...I don't think there's a uniform definition of fatalism. It seems to be used in more than one sense.<br /><br />i) Some writers use "fatalism" as a synonym for "determinism." I think that obscures rather than clarifies the concept.<br /><br />ii) In stories (e.g. Croesus, Oedipus, Final Destination), fatalism carries the connotation of a character knowing his fate, then struggling desperately and futilely to escape his fate. That's similar to the situation of Joseph's brothers, but very different from election or reprobation. <br /><br />iii) Fatalism is consistent with the freedom to do otherwise. The ill-fated individual may succeed in avoiding many of the traps set by fate. But in the end he's bound to lose because he has to get luckily every time whereas fate only has to get lucky once. If one trap fails, fate sets another trap.<br /><br />iv) In predestination, there is only one route to the destination. In addition, election ensures that certain events will occur in the life of the elect, viz. regeneration, justification (contingent on faith), sanctification. <br /><br />In fatalism, by contrast, every road, every detour, every escape route, leads to the same destination. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54913505053535920742015-03-22T21:35:37.586-04:002015-03-22T21:35:37.586-04:00Hello Steve,
Semi-related to this post, there'...Hello Steve,<br /><br />Semi-related to this post, there's something I've been wondering about. In the past, you've specified that with fatalism, the means don't matter. Whatever events take place, the end result is the same. So I'm wondering how this effects a passage like Rom 9:11; if God does His choosing before they could do good or bad, doesn't that remove the means from the final equation? How do we escape the charge of fatalism in a case like this?Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.com