tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post5429654756006115477..comments2024-03-28T00:08:14.247-07:00Comments on Foster's Theological Reflections: Does God Know the Future Contingently?Edgar Fosterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-42469194712347788222014-04-07T09:40:30.356-07:002014-04-07T09:40:30.356-07:00Hi Nathan,
I always learn something from your pos...Hi Nathan,<br /><br />I always learn something from your posts. That's not just a mutual admiration thing. I really mean it. :)<br /><br />Your point about how we define "omniscience" is well taken. I've often pointed out to my students how difficult the task of developing non-question begging definitions are. For example, some want to define "omnipotence" has "having maximal power," and that is fine with me, as long as the definition is not meant to say that "God can do anything." More satisfactory, in all likelihood, is Aquinas' definition for omnipotence: able to do all that is logically possible. In any event, how we define terms has a tremendous effect on premises and conclusions of arguments.<br /><br />As for the second part of your submission, I'll try to find specific examples of how someone might try to demonstrate God's exhaustive knowledge, but from what I've witnessed, those who believe that God exhaustively knows the future try to assemble evidence from scripture and reason (philosophy) to support their views. Some have told me that God is necessarily omniscient in the strong sense or they say prophecy would be endangered if God did not know the future exhaustively. <br /><br />Yb,<br />Edgar<br /><br />Edgar Fosterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00280475259670777653noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13958708.post-35200695882761732522014-04-06T05:46:32.711-07:002014-04-06T05:46:32.711-07:00Hi Edgar,
Another brain-bender? But it's so l...Hi Edgar,<br /><br />Another brain-bender? But it's so late here! ... ;)<br /><br />It seems to me that the answer to this problem begins and ends with one's definition of omniscience and how to square such a definition with divine providence. From what I have seen, those holding to the view of your interlocutor begin with a definition and then reason accordingly. For any given proposition P, God knows and believes P and cannot believe not P. Of course, the way that statement is worded enables one to argue for God's providential knowledge in all places and at all times. While this conclusion does seem to follow, I can't help but see a hidden premise whereby the argument is actually initiated by begging the question. One can't begin with a definition without first enabling that definition from the sources it is supposed to support.<br /><br />At any rate, if God's foreknowledge is tenselessly propositional and not merely contingent, then the Bible seems to provide a confusing (or worse, misleading) account of God's providential knowledge – at critical points in Judeo-Christian history, no less (Gen.18:21, 22:12; Deut. 13:3; Acts 10:34f). In discussions on this issue, I have found that those who proffer the former view usually do so as a means to prevent what they see as the divine essence from being diminished. To exalt creaturely freedom is to exalt in a limitation of God, as it were. But surely this is putting the cart before the horse again. Since we have good reason to think that there are limitations in God's ontic and moral nature already (can't die, can't lie, can't instantiate the logically impossible [contra Descartes]), why dismiss the possibility of a noetic limitation unless one rigidly clings to a presuppositional formula? Or what about a self-limitation in God that is exercised for the sake of creaturely freedom? Really, aren't those of the reformed tradition hoisting decision over doctrine, and tradition over text? Of course, these are rhetorical questions only. Nevertheless, it's disconcerting to see so many in the throngs of this debate using their philosophy to inform Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to inform their philosophy.<br /><br />Yb,<br /><br />NathanNathannoreply@blogger.com