Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[rkwright]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 8 2005, 10:01 PM']I briefly explain why I can't accept open theism as neo-molinism in a couple of my prior posts. Here is one:

I would suggest reading all of my posts (hey, advent is supposed to be a time of penance ) if you want to understand more where I'm coming from. My last post on page 5 explains the dogmas that I believe are crucial to this discussion.

I looked in phatty's reference section and found some links that offer great explanations of molinism and the issues it attempts to deal with.

It looks like Dave Armstrong is a Molinist!
[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20030416003100/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ121.HTM"]http://web.archive.org/web/20030416003100/...smus/RAZ121.HTM[/url]

And the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10437a.htm[/url]

Other stuff:
[url="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p29.htm"]http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p29.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PREDESTI.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/PREDESTI.TXT[/url]

phatty's page:
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/141"]http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat_id/141[/url]
[right][snapback]817749[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


yea I've been following this thread closely, I've read your posts. I saw what you said the differences were, but its hard to compare the two for myself when I don't even know the first.

[Snarf]

Wasn't the point of Anselm's argument on free will that the will presents contingencies, but because God sees all of time in one eternal gaze he knows them certainly? That is, contingency exists, but eternity trumps it for God and God alone?

Sorry if that was brought up, I only skimmed a few pages of this.

I'm supposed to take a class on Anselm next year. Woo.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Dec 8 2005, 11:31 PM']Wasn't the point of Anselm's argument on free will that the will presents contingencies, but because God sees all of time in one eternal gaze he knows them certainly?  That is, contingency exists, but eternity trumps it for God and God alone?

Sorry if that was brought up, I only skimmed a few pages of this.

I'm supposed to take a class on Anselm next year.  Woo.
[right][snapback]817797[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yeah. That is the basically an expression of the perennial understanding of God that open theism explicitly rejects. I reject the assertion that this understanding is an import from Platonism. The articulation may often be in terminology and categories that can be found in Platonic or Aristotelian sources, but the fundamental understanding is rooted in the Divine pedagogy, or the self-revelation of God in salvation history.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='rkwright' date='Dec 8 2005, 11:31 PM']yea I've been following this thread closely, I've read your posts.  I saw what you said the differences were, but its hard to compare the two for myself when I don't even know the first.
[right][snapback]817796[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
cool. I hope my links helped. (if so thank phatty) :

another thing to keep in mind is that the issues that inspired molinism are different than that of open theism. The issue has more to do with the efficacy of grace in relation to our free will, and in the context of Catholic dogma and the authentic theological tradition. It is more specific than open theism and isn't revisionary.

[Snarf]

Well, one thing I talk about in my book is the fact that Platonism had a very skewed understanding of eternity, so you'd be right by that measure. However, NEO-Platonism, in the guise of Plotinus, did elaborate successfully on the subject and it was through Plotinus that Augustine acquired his acute insight into the nature of time and God's lack thereof. I've never seen Anselm's argument for free will flat-out stated by Augustine or Plotinus, but they certainly had all the pieces to the puzzle at their ready disposal. The whole thing seems so tautological to me that I'm not the least bit surprised that they omitted mentioning it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yeah, I pretty much agree about the tautological character of that argument. Its strange to me when people don't get it because it has always struck me as just self-evident. And something I knew, but probably could not have articulated, long before I had read anything particularly philosophical or theological.

I'm too lazy to dig up quotes, but the subject of God's timelessness is not foreign to the Fathers prior to Augustine (as I know you know, I just feel like spewing a bit). I don't deny the originality and insight of Augustine, but I do believe that he considered himself to be expounding upon the faith, not creating novel doctrines.

My understanding of the Faith excludes the possibility of the novelty of open theism or any form of co-eternalism. My understanding of God is along these lines:

"Our God has no introduction in time. He alone is without beginning, and is himself the beginning of all things." - Tatian the Syrian, 170 AD

"I have sufficiently demonstrated that we are not atheists, since we acknowledge one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, incapable of being acted upon, incomprehensible, unbounded, by whom all things, through his Word, have been produced and set in order and are kept in existence"
- Athenagoras, 177 AD

"God, however, being without parts, is Father of the Son without division and without being acted upon. For neither is there an effluence from that which is incorporeal, nor is there anything flowering into him from without, as in the case of men. Being simple in nature, he is Father of one only Son" - Athanasius, 350 AD

"The one God, the first and only, both Creator and Lord of all things, had nothing co-eternal... No, he was one, to himself alone. And when he so willed, he created those things which before had no existence other than in his willing to make them and inasmuch as he had knowledge of what would be, for he also has foreknowledge" - Hippolytus, 228 AD

"God ... founder and Creator of all things, who alone knows no beginning, who is invisible, immeasurable, immortal, and eternal, is one God... He that exists before all time cannot be spoken of in relation to time." - Novatian, 235 AD

[Guest JeffCR07]

No offense intended, to either of you, as you are both much smarter than I am, but I must wonder about anyone who claims Anselm's discussion of free will to be so simple and self-evident as to be called tautological.

What do you think Anselm's discussion of free will consists of?




(P.S. - LD, at least you [i]must[/i] have known that bringing up Anselm would get me into the discussion : )

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 9 2005, 07:49 AM']No offense intended, to either of you, as you are both much smarter than I am, but I must wonder about anyone who claims Anselm's discussion of free will to be so simple and self-evident as to be called tautological.

What do you think Anselm's discussion of free will consists of?
(P.S. - LD, at least you [i]must[/i] have known that bringing up Anselm would get me into the discussion  : )
[right][snapback]818027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Awww pooh... Well, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Anselm's discussion of free-will is tautological. hehe
I really just meant that to my mind the understanding of God's eternity / timelessness as not equaling causal necessity on the level of our free acts is so intuitive that to my mind the whole concept is practically a tautology. But I realize there are other level of complexity in the whole subject such as the theological controversies that lead to theories throughout history such as Pelagianism, Compatiblism, Molinism, etc.. But still, based on what I would call a correct intuitive notion of God's eternity, the assertion that His foreknowledge excludes the possibility of our having free-will, has never been logically consistent to me, but rather the contrary affirmation seems self-evident. But it was a subjective statement. And it was leaving aside questions of grace, predestination and sin. :
Geezum, so I like to be agreeable once of twice a week. Sue me.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 9 2005, 07:49 AM'](P.S. - LD, at least you [i]must[/i] have known that bringing up Anselm would get me into the discussion  : )
[right][snapback]818027[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh yes. I was wondering when you were gonna start throwing in your two cents.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 9 2005, 12:15 AM']

So you know, this subject and conversation is awesome and I'm really glad you came to phatmass.

God bless you.
[right][snapback]817777[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


thank you sir...I actually thought I was causing problems, glad Im not.

I feel bad I must confess, my experience is debating this in an evangelical protestant arena, sometimes against a reformed calvinistic perspective. So my language and function is in that arena. So I dont feel I am properly able to answer you because I dont know what you are saying most of the time. JoeyO is gifted in philosophy and so I have him translate most of the time. Dr. Boyd is trained in philosophy, but im ecumenism and theology. The best thing I can say is to read those links I gave you from boyd (the god of the possible one and the respoinse) they are the 3 I gave a while ago. I will try the best I can to respond

this forum has been great for me also, besides my priest and sometimes bishop I lack catholic fellowship entirely.

[Laudate_Dominum]

oh my, you aren't causing problems at all.. I love these kind of debates. I'm just sorry that I've been so cryptic at times, and I hope I haven't offended you with my bombastic declamations.

So you know, I would take open theism over calvinism any day. I hope you don't take my incessant criticism too hard. I see these sorts of discussions as a striving toward truth, and I lament being so hopelessly garrulous.

I hope I haven't made you feel unwelcome or under the hot lamp. While I suppose I am guilty of attempting to approach open theism with a critical eye (something I can't apologize for), you are far from unwelcome in my eyes. Your arrival on phatmass has been something of a breath of fresh air to me, because you've brought a perspective that is new and provocative. And you've been nothing but civil and charitable thus far, while I feel I've perhaps been inadvertently brutish and pretentious.

I hope the totality of my posts does not prove to be worthless because I can't articulate myself in a way that makes any clear sense. Maybe I should just back off and let you talk it out with other people who are more lucid and down to earth than myself.

*sigh*

God bless you my friend.

[N/A Gone]

you are lucid dear friend, just in a different language. perhaps it is my problem because this is my theology, but I cant explain it to you as I want. Personally I wanna blame it on sarah (she is italian) cause I wanna use my hands and drawings to explain this. I am far a better communakator in person( the k is for a reason)

For you friend, I recommend strongly the links I gave. I can give them again if you wish. I am sending your edu-ma-cation on monday.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Dec 9 2005, 11:08 AM']Awww pooh... Well, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Anselm's discussion of free-will is tautological. hehe
I really just meant that to my mind the understanding of God's eternity / timelessness as not equaling causal necessity on the level of our free acts is so intuitive that to my mind the whole concept is practically a tautology. But I realize there are other level of complexity in the whole subject such as the theological controversies that lead to theories throughout history such as Pelagianism, Compatiblism, Molinism, etc.. But still, based on what I would call a correct intuitive notion of God's eternity, the assertion that His foreknowledge excludes the possibility of our having free-will, has never been logically consistent to me, but rather the contrary affirmation seems self-evident. But it was a subjective statement. And it was leaving aside questions of grace, predestination and sin. :
Geezum, so I like to be agreeable once of twice a week. Sue me.
[right][snapback]818266[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


lol, I'm just messing with you. And I agree with your intuition. In fact, the argument is simply invalid when scrutinized with modal logic:

The proposition that "Necessarily, X wills Y" is not equivalent in modal logic to the proposition that "X Necessarily wills Y". Thus, it can be true that "God knows X, therefore X obtains" without it being true that "God knows X, therefore X obtains [i]because God knows it[/i].

Anselm has a long discussion about this...and I agree, once you get your head around it, it just makes sense : :

[rkwright]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 9 2005, 02:28 PM']lol, I'm just messing with you. And I agree with your intuition. In fact, the argument is simply invalid when scrutinized with modal logic:

The proposition that "Necessarily, X wills Y" is not equivalent in modal logic to the proposition that "X Necessarily wills Y". Thus, it can be true that "God knows X, therefore X obtains" without it being true that "God knows X, therefore X obtains [i]because God knows it[/i].

Anselm has a long discussion about this...and I agree, once you get your head around it, it just makes sense  :  :
[right][snapback]818802[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

ugh so smart so smart! teach me teach me!

[Myles Domini]

[quote]QUOTE(JeffCR07 @ Dec 9 2005, 02:28 PM)lol, I'm just messing with you. And I agree with your intuition. In fact, the argument is simply invalid when scrutinized with modal logic:

The proposition that "Necessarily, X wills Y" is not equivalent in modal logic to the proposition that "X Necessarily wills Y". Thus, it can be true that "God knows X, therefore X obtains" without it being true that "God knows X, therefore X obtains because God knows it.

Anselm has a long discussion about this...and I agree, once you get your head around it, it just makes sense   




ugh so smart so smart! teach me teach me! [/quote]

Hehehehe

Looks like the floor's all yours Jeff

INXC
Myles

PS) The proslogion...meditation or apologetic Jeff?