Trintarian Warfare theodicy

[Guest JeffCR07]

Hahaha, well I'm not exactly sure what exactly the question of the present discussion [i]is[/i], so I'll answer your much more fun meditation/apologetic question!

In my mind, no one who would legitimately consider himself an Anselmian would place himself in either "camp" because it really is [i]both[/i]. Even if that is a cop-out answer :

Anselm would have considered the two integrally linked. For as cliche as it is, the key to his philosophy/theology really is the idea of [i]fides quaerens intellectum[/i] - faith seeking understanding. What he means by this is that when one possesses a sure faith, that faith motivates him to learn about it - to delve more deeply into it with his intellect. So faith is the starting point, and that means meditation. But any attempt to learn about the faith with the intellect will, of necessity, involve the recognition of the contrary - when the man of faith scrutinizes his faith with intellect, he will come into contact with the faithless, the atheist, the skeptic, simply out of principle. So then, by its very nature, a faith that pushes one to learn more deeply about it via the intellect will of course take on a nature of apologetics.

So in short, here is the Anselmian process:

I have a deep faith, which I love. Love for this faith motivates me to learn as much as I can about it. Just as learning the truth involves the recognition and correction of falsehood, so too does learning the faith involve the recognition and correction of the faithless. This is apologetics.

So, in Anselm's mind, any deep meditation will have an apologetic component, and the best apologetics will be found within the context of meditation. :

Is that a wishy-washy enough answer?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 9 2005, 03:28 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]
muahahahaaa!

I love Anselm, but the modality of his thought is not quite to my taste. I think we have Anselm (and perhaps Peter Abelard) to thank in large part for the infiltration of the modal paradigm of synchronic alternatives in Catholic thought (at least that's what I tend to believe based on my understanding as of now). Perhaps this can be pinned down as the culprit with regard to the later development of Molinism? This is far from my area of expertise (assuming I have one at all).

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up, because I suppose on a logical level, the question of open theism has much to do with the paradigm in which the relations between theology, ontology and modality are understood. In fact, further reflection on the subject at hand has given me something of a desire to delve further into Duns Scotus (certain things have come to mind which cause me to suspect that a dialogue between a Scotist and an open theist would be great fun).
I suspect that the repeated accusation that Catholic Theology is based on "Platonic time" might actually have more to do with an assumed or perceived modal paradigm. This may yet be your area of expertise, not mine. What do you think of open theism from this kind of perspective?

Oh, and my impression has always been in agreement with the idea that Anselm's thought stands up all too well in the context of modern modal logic. Most of this impression is for me based on dudes such as Plantinga.
Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion of Plantinga if you happen to have one. This seems more like your area than mine.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Just to [i]try[/i] to get back to the initial post from revprodeji:

[quote]I believe God knows everything, the argument is not that God doesn't know for that is heresy. Rather that the future is not a dimension that is determined. Time is simply a way of recording change in finite beings. That being said i affirm that God knows every possible action and influence perfectly, but for an action to be certain would to mean that we are determined,as a finite being we cant determine something in the future. So does that mean God does it for us? or that our actions are not determined? For a free will is influenced, but not controlled by outside factors. hope that helps for God, or anyone to "know" for certain what your choice will be means it is determined(or settled) which you can not freely settle at this moment, so that means you are there no freely choosing and the influences decide for you, or that God decides for you.[/quote]

In my opinion (if you haven't discoverd by now, I am an Anselmian first, a Thomist second), the problem with the "open theism" you have propounded above is that it fails to make the logical distinction that Anselm makes in Chapters 1-5 of [i]De Concordia[/i] between subsequent necessity and preceeding necessity.

Subsequent necessity is a non-causal necessity. For example, I am now typing this sentence. In order for the truth value of the sentence "I am now typing this sentence" to be true, it is [i]necessary[/i] that I am indeed now typing this sentence. If it were not necessary, then we could imagine a possible-world in which the sentence "I am now typing this sentence" was true even if I was not actually now typing this sentence. But clearly this is not the case. Therefore, it is [i]necessary[/i].

Now, what if we consider the sentence "I will be writing that sentence two seconds from now"? In order for the sentence "I will be writing that sentence two seconds from now" to be true, it is similarly necessary for me to write that sentence two seconds from now. This means that a future event is [i]necessary[/i] in order for the sentence to obtain, but this sentence does not [i]cause[/i] the future event to obtain.

If you want, I will post on preceeding necessity later, but now I have to go to a dinner party, where, as LD knows, I will sadly not be drinking the amazing scotch and guiness that my friends bought :

[Laudate_Dominum]

What you (and Anselm I suppose) call subsequent necessity seems to be what I would call logical necessity. And sure, this is not the same thing as causal necessity. That's a good point.
God knows the future entirely and infallibly, but this distinction might say that determined future events are known by causal necessity, but free acts are known by subsequent or logical necessity thus the idea of causal necessity (which would be contrary to free-will) does not logically follow.

something like that anyway?

p.s. you're no martyr in my eyes for abstaining from the booze. you're being oppressed man! fight the establishment! they can take away our lives, but they can't take away our Guinness!!!
:

Oh, and I think it would be fun to attack this logical paradigm. muahahaaa! W.W.H.S.? (What Would Hume Say?)

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]God knows the future entirely and infallibly, but this distinction might say that determined future events are known by causal necessity, but free acts are known by subsequent or logical necessity thus the idea of causal necessity (which would be contrary to free-will) does not logically follow. cool.gif[/quote]

Exactly. The only correction I would make is that Anselm would point out that it isn't an either/or situation. God knows the subsequent necessity of all things, and If something is necessary by preceeding necessity (causal necessity), then God would know this as well.

[quote]Oh, and my impression has always been in agreement with the idea that Anselm's thought stands up all too well in the context of modern modal logic. Most of this impression is for me based on dudes such as Plantinga.
Actually, I wouldn't mind hearing your opinion of Plantinga if you happen to have one. This seems more like your area than mine. [/quote]

Anselm's argument is valid in S5 modal logic. Depending on who you talk to, some logicians will, upon hearing this, simply respond that this calls into question the validity of S5 modal logic, but that begs the question, and they know it.

I actually like Plantinga. Not everything that he says is on-target, but you can't expect someone to get it [i]all[/i] right. Plus, his "victorious argument" (while not a perfect translation of Anselm's) does seem to work. Others who have done similar modal-logic defenses of the ontological argument are Norman Malcolm and Charles Hartshorne.

[quote]I love Anselm, but the modality of his thought is not quite to my taste. I think we have Anselm (and perhaps Peter Abelard) to thank in large part for the infiltration of the modal paradigm of synchronic alternatives in Catholic thought (at least that's what I tend to believe based on my understanding as of now). Perhaps this can be pinned down as the culprit with regard to the later development of Molinism? This is far from my area of expertise (assuming I have one at all).

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up, because I suppose on a logical level, the question of open theism has much to do with the paradigm in which the relations between theology, ontology and modality are understood. In fact, further reflection on the subject at hand has given me something of a desire to delve further into Duns Scotus (certain things have come to mind which cause me to suspect that a dialogue between a Scotist and an open theist would be great fun).
I suspect that the repeated accusation that Catholic Theology is based on "Platonic time" might actually have more to do with an assumed or perceived modal paradigm. This may yet be your area of expertise, not mine. What do you think of open theism from this kind of perspective?[/quote]

To be honest, I am not very well aquainted with Medieval modality - my experience is with modern modal logic, so I'm not sure how much help I'd be in answering this question, though it certainly sounds interesting :

[Laudate_Dominum]

Jeff, you're inspiring me to dust off the Proslogion.

Actually it would be cool to have a thread about Anselm in the Apologetics board or something.

My understanding is that the validity of the modal logic redition of Anselm's meditation rests upon the so-called possibility premise central to the S5 approach. Shucks.. Maybe I'll dust off the Plantinga too. It would be fun to get to the bottom of all this, I'd just hate to hijack this thread.
And it sounds like you've given this subject a great deal of thought. I'm quite interested in hearing what you think about the whole subject. Especially with regards to the ontological argument (I'm not exactly familiar with the two other peeps you mentioned, but I'm curious).

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 10 2005, 09:15 AM']Exactly. The only correction I would make is that Anselm would point out that it isn't an either/or situation. God knows the subsequent necessity of all things, and If something is necessary by preceeding necessity (causal necessity), then God would know this as well.
[right][snapback]819615[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I love it. This could seem related (at least in my mind) to the later positing of [i]scientia media[/i].

I've always had this goofy idea that it would be really cool if some highly erudite scholar would write an exposition of philosophy and theology in a kind of recursive historical approach. The idea I have in mind would be to present the material in the form of dialogues between historical figures. I think Anselm vs. Molina might be a good installment. And maybe Scotus vs. Open Theism (not sure who the personality would be on this side). Some dialogues could include three or more people as well. For example, Palamas, Thomas and Barth. Or maybe the Cappadocian Fathers vs. Plotinus and Porphyry.

Gosh, if I was rich I'd hire a small army of scholars to produce this great multi-volume recursive history of philosophy and theology. Of course it would be highly controversial. I imagine a volume such as Augustine and Chrysostom vs. Luther and Calvin would stir up a hornets nest on many fronts.

Alright, enough with my day dreams.. peace.

[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]
It was all Snarf's fault. :

But I'm glad you're here. fun stuff. :

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 9 2005, 11:33 AM']this forum has been great for me also, besides my priest and sometimes bishop I lack catholic fellowship entirely.
[right][snapback]818309[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Btw, I know you've talked about open theism with your pastor. I doubt he phatmasses, but I wonder what he might think of the issues discussed on this thread? Just a thought.

God bless.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I just got done flipping though and reading parts of a couple different books on open theism that I found.

The first was about Divine foreknowledge and was by Boyd and William Lane Craig I believe. The other one was by a bunch of peeps and was called The Openness of God.

I hope I have time to do a very thorough and critical study of these and other books. For some reason this subject is quite interesting and fun for me..

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote]I've always had this goofy idea that it would be really cool if some highly erudite scholar would write an exposition of philosophy and theology in a kind of recursive historical approach. The idea I have in mind would be to present the material in the form of dialogues between historical figures. I think Anselm vs. Molina might be a good installment. And maybe Scotus vs. Open Theism (not sure who the personality would be on this side). Some dialogues could include three or more people as well. For example, Palamas, Thomas and Barth. Or maybe the Cappadocian Fathers vs. Plotinus and Porphyry.

Gosh, if I was rich I'd hire a small army of scholars to produce this great multi-volume recursive history of philosophy and theology. Of course it would be highly controversial. I imagine a volume such as Augustine and Chrysostom vs. Luther and Calvin would stir up a hornets nest on many fronts. [/quote]

hahaha, I'd [i]love[/i] to read that book.

[quote]Jeff, you're inspiring me to dust off the Proslogion.[/quote]

lol, good! If you're interested in learning about his thoughts on free will within the context of this discussion, I'd be happy to email you a great translation of his "On the Harmony of the Foreknowledge, the Predestination, and the Grace of God with Free Choice." I think you'd find it really interesting

[philothea]

[Guest JeffCR07]

lol, I'm not really sure where this thread is supposed to be going.

P.S. LD, Charles Hartshorne is a big advocate of the validity of the ontological argument.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Dec 11 2005, 01:27 PM']lol, I'm not really sure where this thread is supposed to be going.
[right][snapback]820550[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

idk either..I think a big problem is that it is finals time, and I am using this board as an escape, thus I dont wanna think too hard. Also, fluff is killed by finals.

originally i believe it started with me explaining the view, as a protestant the TWT was the doctrine i worked with the most, it brought me to faith, and has become a lense, or worldview that I see everything thru. perhaps a literal metaphysic. I think L_D challenged it, rightly of course, and I dont speak his language so we had some translation problems. I have posted a bit on this board about it, with links also. originally my goal was to explain, but than it appeared that it was "under investagaton as a heresy" although I am convident in my research this summer with my priest/bishop that it is not. also, with my studies in open theism I am sure it is not heretical, if anything I doubt I could put it down. Open theism does not work well for a thomist, but neither does molinism. But both are allowd within the faith.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 12 2005, 01:29 AM']idk either..I think a big problem is that it is finals time, and I am using this board as an escape, thus I dont wanna think too hard. Also, fluff is killed by finals.

originally i believe it started with me explaining the view, as a protestant the TWT was the doctrine i worked with the most, it brought me to faith, and has become a lense, or worldview that I see everything thru. perhaps a literal metaphysic. I think L_D challenged it, rightly of course, and I dont speak his language so we had some translation problems. I have posted a bit on this board about it, with links also. originally my goal was to explain, but than it appeared that it was "under investagaton as a heresy" although I am convident in my research this summer with my priest/bishop that it is not. also, with my studies in open theism I am sure it is not heretical, if anything I doubt I could put it down. Open theism does not work well for a thomist, but neither does molinism. But both are allowd within the faith.
[right][snapback]821335[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
God bless you my friend. I was wondering what's been up with you lately. I should have known.. finals!

Anyway, I've been able to devote some time to reading more about open theism and reflecting upon it and I was actually hoping to discuss it a bit.

You insisted earlier that the key issue at hand has to do with one's conception of time. Based on the books I've been reading I must disagree. The differences are way beyond this.

My recent suspicion has been that open theism is a kind of reaction to Calvinism and Arminianism. While I still suspect there may be truth to this, its almost irrelevant at this point.
If I were to put on an open theist hat right now and explain what is unique about my view I would perhaps put it thus:

The entire history of Christian Theology has been tainted by the doctrines of Greek Pagan Philosophy. Concepts such as God's timelessness, immutability, simplicity, etc. do not derive from the Revelation of God in Scripture, but are rather pervasive imports from Greek philosophy.
The exegesis of historical Christianity (and its most basic roots) has assumed these concepts and categories, thus the foundations of historical Christianity's Theology are false and eisegetical in nature.
We can examine the concept of God according to the major figures of historical Christian thought, persons such as Augustine, Jerome, Thomas, Calvin, Luther, etc. and locate their basic presuppositions regarding the nature of God not in Biblical Revelation, but in pagan philosophy and superstition.
On a point by point basis it is possible to locate the origin of these key Theological assumptions and concepts in historical figures such as Anexagores, Parmenides, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca, Plotinus, Philo of Alexandria, etc.
Open theism represents the first pure Biblical Theology of God based on the unadulterated Revelation of God in Scripture without the foundational interpretive baggage of Pagan Greek thought.
The false gods of the pagan philosophers and their philosophical pollution, whether we mean "the One", Plato's demiurge, Aristotle's prime mover, etc. must be expunged from Theology, because it is precisely these false concepts based on the nature of mind and ideas, causality and necessity, fate and a deterministic cosmos, that have led to the false understandings of God such as "timeless", "immutable" and "pure act", to name but a few of the strange Greek concepts which saturate the history of Christian Theology.
What the Bible actually reveals is a God who feels and gets angry, a God who changes His mind. A God who does not always know the future, not a God of fate and determinism; a God who has endowed us with libertarian free-will and who is in dialogue and relationship with us. Not the static, far-off orderer of the cosmos with utter impassibility and deterministic omniscience.
The reason open theism strikes so many as "anthropomorphic eisegesis" (my own accusation from a previous post), is because they read the Bible whilst presupposing the Greek concepts of God, rather than reading the Biblical Revelation of God on its own terms.
Even the most relational of the historical concepts of God, still cast God upon the backdrop of a deterministic essence, whether this is thought of primarily as "the Good", or "pure actuality", or what have you. These are always fundamentality Greek Philosophical understandings of God.
The God of the Bible is first and foremost a God of love and communion. True libertarian freedom, a God of empathy, not a God of mechanism, incapable of change or receptivity in relation to us.
Open theism is the first purely Biblical concept of God free of the shackles of the pagans.

Is this more or less a fair presentation of what an open theist might say?
This is pretty much how its sounding to me at this point from the research I've been doing.
Before I proceed to offer extensive criticism of this novel theology, I would like to at least understand it on its own terms.

Thank you sir.