Craig's Creation, Providence, and Miracle

[Kurieuo]

[Thread created from http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... &start=120]

Hi Paul,

The closest comments I see I have made in this discussion regarding whether God chooses us or we choose God is as follows:

That said, I would agree that by nature we would prefer to be selfish and disregard God. Paul says as much in Romans (3:10-12): "There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away..." Yet, I would maintain we still can seek God. How is it we can seek God? Well, God desires all of us to come to Him, so I see He would be trying to draw all of us to Himself. God attempts to get our attention, whether it be through life experiences, other people, tragedies, or some other way. God attempt to kindle a spark within us. With His influence and depending on our response such kindling, I see a spark can result in a flame bringing a full change in us in our response to Him. On the other hand, a person can simply keep denying God and becoming more hardened and hardened against Him. So I see it is HIS choice is for ALL to come to Him, but it remains OUR choice to respond to Him in a positive manner.

To clarify one thing. I do not see we choose to be saved. I see we either respond positively or negatively to being in fellowship with God.

While it is not the real topic of this thread, if you wish to know more of my belief and where I am coming from regarding predestination and free will then I align myself to William Craig's Middle Knowledge position. You can read more of this in his article Creation, Providence, and Miracle (scroll down to the heading of "Providence")

Finally, I do not claim to be Arminian, nor see my position as strictly Arminian. I do not see Arminians as saying predestination and our freedom to choose are compatible and not contradictory. Rather, I see the Arminian position as being directly opposite to Calvinists on the matter of God's predestining us versus our freedom to choose. That is, a strict Arminian will place our freedom to choose above God's predestining us and then attempt to justify the passages you present and make them fit their position. Calvinists on the other hand place God's predestining of the elect above that of our freedom to choose and attempt to make passages emphasising our freedom fit with their position. Let me clearly say I do not place God's predestining above our freedom to choose, or vice-versa. The position I linked to above should explain how this is coherently possible.

[Pierac]

Whoa Kurieuo,

Thanks for the link, You are way deeper in philosophy than myself! I understood the definitions but failed to grasp the theology. I could not see the forest because of the trees. What's the theology here?

I read the following:

Properly speaking . . . it is only true to say that a creature is created at the first moment (of its existence) and only after that moment is it conserved, for only then does its being have this order to itself as something that was, as it were, there before. Because of these different conceptual relationships implied by the words 'create' and 'conserve' it follows that one does not apply to a thing when the other does.{8}
Intuitively, creation involves God's bringing something into being. Thus, if God creates some entity e (whether an individual or an event) at a time t (whether an instant or finite interval), then e comes into being at t. We can explicate this notion as follows:
E1. e comes into being at t iff (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, and (iii) e's existing at t is a tensed fact
Accordingly,
E2. God creates e at t iff God brings it about that e comes into being at t
God's creating e involves e's coming into being, which is an absolute beginning of existence, not a transition of e from non-being into being.

So what does this have to say about Jesus? God's only begotten Son. E1 Jesus was begotten at e God brought about that beginning at t . t is the first time at which e existed. So that leads e's existence at t as an tense fact. Is this correct?
E2 God creates (Jesus) e at t iff God brings it about that e comes into being at t God's creating (Jesus) e involves (Jesus') e's coming into being, which is an absolute beginning of existence, not a transition of (Jesus) e from non-being into being?

E3. God conserves e iff God acts upon e to bring about e's existing from t until some t*>t through every sub-interval of the interval [t, t* ]

I'm getting confused here at E3 God conserves (Jesus) e if God acts upon (Jesus) e to bring about (Jesus') e's existing from t until some t*>tthrough every sub-interval of the interval [t,t*] Now I'm lost here?

Any thoughts to help a limitedly trained philosophical mind. I have not been to trained to think in this way. One must spend time in this thought process to become accustom to it's nuance. Just what is he saying here?

Also, I did not mean to imply your belief was Arminian; I was generalizing the two major belief systems. Your comments did not lean towards Calvinism so I placed you more towards the Arminian camp. It was just a generalization on my part. However, I would like to get back on topic but do not have a clear understanding of your theology. It's not necessary but would help me focus on what not to cover in these discussions, thus limiting any longer than necessary posts.

Peace,

Paul

[Kurieuo]

Whoa Kurieuo,

Thanks for the link, You are way deeper in philosophy than myself! I understood the definitions but failed to grasp the theology. I could not see the forest because of the trees. What's the theology here?

I did not expect you to go reading the top part. The part that was relevant to predestination and free will is under the heading of "Providence". I have not personally read to top part, but having read Craig's book, Time and Eternity I do understand what Craig is saying so I will try to respond to your questions.

I read the following:

Properly speaking . . . it is only true to say that a creature is created at the first moment (of its existence) and only after that moment is it conserved, for only then does its being have this order to itself as something that was, as it were, there before. Because of these different conceptual relationships implied by the words 'create' and 'conserve' it follows that one does not apply to a thing when the other does.{8}
Intuitively, creation involves God's bringing something into being. Thus, if God creates some entity e (whether an individual or an event) at a time t (whether an instant or finite interval), then e comes into being at t. We can explicate this notion as follows:
E1. e comes into being at t iff (i) e exists at t, (ii) t is the first time at which e exists, and (iii) e's existing at t is a tensed fact
Accordingly,
E2. God creates e at t iff God brings it about that e comes into being at t
God's creating e involves e's coming into being, which is an absolute beginning of existence, not a transition of e from non-being into being.

So what does this have to say about Jesus? God's only begotten Son. E1 Jesus was begotten at e God brought about that beginning at t . t is the first time at which e existed. So that leads e's existence at t as an tense fact. Is this correct?

E2 God creates (Jesus) e at t iff God brings it about that e comes into being at t God's creating (Jesus) e involves (Jesus') e's coming into being, which is an absolute beginning of existence, not a transition of (Jesus) e from non-being into being?

Adding Jesus into the equation just adds greater complexity since Jesus was begotton, yet uncreated having always existed and having created all that was created (cf. John 1:1-3). So it is perhaps best not to try figure how this applies to Jesus, since Jesus has always existed. What is important in Craig's words here, is his exploration of a tensed theory of time, and what it means according to such a position for an entity to actually be created into existence.

The last part of Craig's last sentence quoted above, that is, "not a transition of e from non-being into being," I believe is a denial of a static or non-tensed theory of time. I will attempt to explain the difference below.

E3. God conserves e iff God acts upon e to bring about e's existing from t until some t*>t through every sub-interval of the interval [t, t* ]

I'm getting confused here at E3 God conserves (Jesus) e if God acts upon (Jesus) e to bring about (Jesus') e's existing from t until some t*>tthrough every sub-interval of the interval [t,t*] Now I'm lost here?

Any thoughts to help a limitedly trained philosophical mind. I have not been to trained to think in this way. One must spend time in this thought process to become accustom to it's nuance. Just what is he saying here?

Craig's reasoning above presumes some understanding on different philosophical positions regarding the nature of time. Essentially there are two main categories: tensed theories of time, and non-tensed theories of time.

On tensed theories of time, you have tensed facts. When something does come into existence (e), it did not exist before it came into existence but really does come into existence at time t. I see this as the common sense and more intuitive understanding of time. On the other hand, others argue for non-tensed theories of time which are more elaborate and mind boggling. On a non-tensed theories of time their is no past, no future, no present, but rather everything that exists, has existed, or will exist all exist at once. Time is simply a traversal through a static world so-to-speak. As such, the day we die is not a future event and our birth is not a past event, but each have existed as long as each other. To help you conceptually, this instance of ourselves in the August 2007 just happens to be traversing this point of time in the world, yet this does not mean the year 2009 does not also exist and is being traversed by others (including an instance of ourselves in 2009 if we have not died before then).

To try demonstrate the difference consider the a tensed theory of time as a consecutive series with events each following the other. E.g.,

events in time --->
t0, t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, ...

A non-tensed theory of time would say events at t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7 have all exist as long as each other and even infinitely so. There was never a time the events at t7 did not exist. In fact the events at t7 have existed just as long as the events at t1. It just happens that whatever causes us to traverse through the world in the manner we do, that tensed facts only appear to be real. The reality is however that tensed facts are illusory. Philosophers of this persuasion even try to invent new language absent of "tense" to avoid contradicting themselves. It is quite interesting and even humorous when you think about it.

On the other hand, if something is really created then Craig is arguing it really does come into existence at the time of its creation. At t1, events at t2+ in no way exist until those points in time are reached. I think this to be the more obvious and intuitive approach to time.

Also, I did not mean to imply your belief was Arminian; I was generalizing the two major belief systems. Your comments did not lean towards Calvinism so I placed you more towards the Arminian camp. It was just a generalization on my part. However, I would like to get back on topic but do not have a clear understanding of your theology. It's not necessary but would help me focus on what not to cover in these discussions, thus limiting any longer than necessary posts.

Unless you find it interesting, I would not worry about trying to understand the first part of the article I quoted. If you jump down to the second part under the bold heading of "Providence" this is where an explanation of Middle Knowledge and the reasoning as to how predestination and our freedom to choose can be seen as compatible.

[Pierac]

Hello Kurieuo,

Ok that makes more sense.

You are definitely more into philosophy and logic than myself. Formula logic is not an area in which I have much exposure. Like most disciplines, it has its own unique terminology, or I might say formulary understanding.

While reading Creation, Providence, and Miracle, a quote came to mind from a book I recently finished by N.H. Snaith titled "The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament"

Snaith writes, "The aim of Hebrew religion was Da'ath Elohim (the knowledge of God); the aim of the Greek thought was Gnothi seauton (Know thyself). Between these two there is a great gulf fixed."

The problem that I saw with Providence was that the formula logic still can not explain Mark 4:10 and John 12:39

ESV Mark 4:10 And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. 11 And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, 12 so that "they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven."

John 12:39 Therefore they could not believe. For again Isaiah said, 40 "He has blinded their eyes and hardened their heart, lest they see with their eyes, and understand with their heart, and turn, and I would heal them."

There is no free will or choice here, it has been removed by God who hardened their heart. Clearly these people would have repented if they were not hardened. The point is clear “lest they turn and be forgiven.” Why would God purposely do this? Because it was not their time.



Now how do we address this issue?

On the other hand, the conviction that human beings are free moral agents also permeates the Hebrew way of thinking, as is evident from passages listed by Carson under nine heads: (1) People face a multitude of divine exhortations and commands, (2) people are said to obey, believe, and choose God, (3) people sin and rebel against God, (4) people's sins are judged by God, (5) people are tested by God, (6) people receive divine rewards, (7) the elect are responsible to respond to God's initiative, (8) prayers are not mere showpieces scripted by God, and (9) God literally pleads with sinners to repent and be saved.{27} These passages rule out a traditional deterministic understanding of divine providence, which precludes human freedom.

Craig make a powerful point here that can not be easily dismissed. I do not have an answer.

This quandary brings to mind a certain verse in Ecclesiastes 3: 10-11

CLV Ecc 3:10 I see the experience that Elohim gives To the sons of humanity to humble
them by it. 11 He has made everything fitting in its season; However, He has put
obscurity in their heart So that the man may not find out His work, That which the One,
Elohim, does from the beginning to the terminus."

KJV Ecc 3:10 I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be
exercised in it. 11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the
world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the
beginning to the end.

My Translation: So God makes everything proper and appropriate for His Plan, but He has put
obscurity in their hearts… so that, or in order that they cannot know or understand what it is that
He is doing to them in this human existence we call life.


Paul

[Pierac]

Kurieuo, I forgot to Thank you for the link to Craig's work.

I have been reading it and trying to process it in more detail this morning. There is a lot of good stuff here. I'm pretty sure I don't agree with everything but nonetheless, he has some truth. Let me share a favourite verse of mine.

Isa 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. 10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

Adam Clark's commentary :
tsau signifies a little precept, such as is suited to the capacity of a child; kau signifies the line that a mason stretches out to build a layer of stones by. After one layer or course is placed, he raises the line and builds another; thus the building is by degrees regularly completed. This is the method of teaching children, giving them such information as their narrow capacities can receive; and thus the prophet dealt with the Israelites.

Are we not all children of the Lord?
Paul

[Kurieuo]

Hi Paul,

This is coming quite late 7 years later, but thanks for the exchange and passages.
You definitely provide some great Scripture and thought.

Just stumbled across this discussion today and for some reasons -- perhaps got distracted by other things -- didn't get to responding many years ago.

If you're still around then I'd be interested to hear your thoughts today.

[Storyteller]

K
Forgive me for jumping in but the vocablury of that link was way above me. I feel a truth in there though even thiugh I dontunderstand the language used.

Can you, would you explain to me as yomu would to a child because thats all I am.
A child of God.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Annette,

Explaining things to a child is something my kids are slowly teaching me to do.
It's often a challenge, but they surprise me sometimes with their questions and own ideas.

Think of Molinism (at least the kind that William Lane Craig in that article espouses) this way...

Before God created, presumably there were many worlds that God could have created.
Why did God create our world?
Did God see everything that would happen before creating?
What about some other world -- did God see everything that went on in that world?
In each world God could has possibly created, did God know all our decisions?
Imagine if God inserted you into the world 100 years earlier...
But, God orchestrated to make you live your life today.

So, there are a seemingly infinite number of possibilities.
God in virtue of His omniscience (knowing everything) would know actual truths (truths that actually happen in life), as well as counter-factual truths (what would be true if things were otherwise).
God knows a world wherein Annette places her faith in Christ, and God likely knows a whole wherein Annette doesn't.
That, is kind of a scary thought -- that God could have chosen to create one world wherein we chose otherwise.

This is referred to as "middle" knowledge -- God's knowledge of all truth associated with creaturely freedom in different worlds that God could will.
And this "middle knowledge" is a term associated with the 16th century Luis de Molina (hence "Molinism").

So why does God choose one world over another?
God's reasons are his alone and it's God's prerogative I think for God to do things according to His goodness.
Let me say though, that if we denied Christ in another world then such is on account of our own free decision in that world.
As I see matters, we can only be judged on what actually happened and who we actually are, not what could have been otherwise.

And who knows... and this is getting a bit more complicated.
BUT, perhaps there is some quality to us that is resilient which regardless of the conditions that we find ourselves -- we would still choose to respond positively to God.
Given this, God places us in a time in place where we can best respond to Him and the necessary conditions of our being saved are met.
That said, I don't believe God is restricted to simply create a world wherein we'd always be saved.
God is God, and also sovereign, so it is God's right to create in the manner that He sees fit.

So basically, on the question of whether God pre-destines some to be saved via Christ, or whether we choose God -- a Molinist would say that God pre-destining us and our freely choosing God are not mutually exclusive (i.e., not a contradiction). And I also see that Scripture supports both God predestining us as well as our freely choosing Christ. The Molinist belief resolves this difficulty in what I believe is a logically coherent manner.

Finally, some believe there is an issue with the Molinist view, in that it down plays God sovereignty.
For example, William Lane Craig believes God ought to create the world wherein the most good happens. This limits God's choosing.
All I believe is that God would generally create a good world, and it's His sovereign right as God to create the world that He desires.
I would question God's love however, if a world was created wherein none were saved. I mean what's the point then?

Now, that is a lot more words then I'd say to a child... but hopefully I've still broken down the underlying concept enough in a more understandable manner.

[Storyteller]

Thanks for that K. I want to fully asorb all that before commenting on it further. There's an awful lot of things to ponder over.
Know what I find curious? I have found God, and Jesus, all without reading any Scripture (apart from distant passages at school)
Reading the Bible is next on my list but God seems to be doing okay in getting His message to me without it. Having said that, I think I can learn a lot more about Jesus from reading Scripture.

[Kurieuo]

Thanks for that K. I want to fully asorb all that before commenting on it further. There's an awful lot of things to ponder over.
Know what I find curious? I have found God, and Jesus, all without reading any Scripture (apart from distant passages at school)
Reading the Bible is next on my list but God seems to be doing okay in getting His message to me without it. Having said that, I think I can learn a lot more about Jesus from reading Scripture.

All knowledge is really a never ending pursuit.
Thankfully people need not know everything otherwise who could be saved?

I would just go with where you interest flows. There is no right or wrong approach.
Thick philosophy/theology can be a headache, but it is just something I enjoy as my brain thinks a lot.

As for Jesus, just start by reading over the Gospels if you haven't (Matt, Mark, Luke, John).
If you have doubts or feel you need to defend Jesus, then I'd look over Gary Habermaus' resources.

[Storyteller]

I can totally relate to the thinking a lot, I do that too, I tend to go off on a tangent all the time though. I start looking into one thing and it leads me on a completely different journey.
Philosophy has always intrigued me, I find some of the ideas difficult to follow sometimes but I love those moments when you figure something out and it makes sense.
I will start with the Gospels when I eventually get round to reading Scripture and I'll know when the time is right.

This pre destined thing... I can see how He may pre destine some to be saved by Christ and how some may choose God. I have always had a firm faith that everything happens for a reason.
I think God created/creates us at the best time that we may seek or accept His love without imposing on our free will.

What I love about this is the wealth of information there is to be found, all we have to do is sort out which of it makes sense to us.