Refering the definition of freedom. Philosophers that are good known in this capable affair are Alvin Plantiga and Nelson Pike. God would hold predicted this as He is all-knowing.
Dennis Bratcher The Nature of Assumptions One of the greatest difficulties in discussing theological issues is Human free will and gods foreknowledge essay and understanding the assumptions upon which any particular theology is built, as well as the questions, perspectives and points of emphasis that give shape to how it unfolds.
Those are almost always influenced by the needs of a community of faith in particular historical circumstances. The logic of a theological system is rarely the source for contention, nor is the fact that particular communities formulate theology based on the kinds of questions they ask from a particular historical frame of reference.
However, the way those questions are formulated from that historical situation is almost always a function of the assumptions that support the theological system, sometimes even more so than the theology itself.
That gives rise to a great many points of contention, especially if the theological system is built on ways of thinking in one group or at one time that are not shared by another group or at another time. That leads to the observation that theology is not an objective equivalent of Truth.
Theology is constructed as the best way, given a certain community in a certain context and within certain parameters of assumption, philosophical framework, and logical coherence, how to communicate what we understand or has been revealed about God. Theology is an expression of a certain community.
Thus, it is a logical construct. That construct may be more or less reliable, but it is not itself the Truth. I am under no illusion that this discussion is going to solve those problems, or even to raise issues that have not been raised before.
Hopefully, however, it will give some perspective for others to discuss the issues on a level that goes beyond simply asserting competing truth claims.
Another term might be "world view," although that includes many aspects besides philosophy such as history, culture, social context, ethos, etc.
In a more specific sense, "philosophical categories" involve the ways of thinking, usually established by a dominant philosophical system in a culture, that define the kinds of questions we ask of our world and ourselves, and thus what we seek as "truth" for how we live.
That is, these categories define what is important in the thinking of a people or culture. For example, the Western world since the 4th century BC has been dominated by questions and perspectives raised by the classic Greek and Roman philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle.
While coming at the issue of the meaning of human existence from different directions, they were both concerned with the primary question of "what is real?
One of the fundamental assumptions arising from Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy is the acceptance of a basically dualistic view of reality in which there are understood to be two thus "dualism" levels of existence.
The "top" level a logical metaphor, not a spatial term is "ultimate reality," and consists of ideas, such as truth, beauty, goodness, justice, perfection. In other words, ultimate reality is non-corporeal, or non-physical. It is the level of "spirit" and "deity.
It is the opposite of ultimate reality, thus it is not "real" in the sense that it is not ultimate. It contains the imperfect physical manifestations of the ideas that exist in the perfect plane, so by definition it is characterized by falsehood, ugliness, evil, injustice, imperfection. So, for example, I can have an idea of a perfect chair.
That idea is the ultimate reality of "chair," because it is perfect in every way. However, any given chair that exists in physical time and space is only an imperfect attempt to copy the ultimate reality that only exists on the level of idea, since any given physical chair cannot be "perfect" in every way.
A physical chair is therefore false, ugly, evil, etc. As this is applied to human beings, it has interesting results.
On the one hand, human beings are viewed much like the physical chair. Since they exist in the lower level of reality, they are by definition evil, imperfect, and, to introduce a value term, sinful. However, since human beings also exhibit the capability to think and contemplate the ideal level, to conceptualize ultimate reality, they must be something more than purely physical and totally evil.
So, the idea is introduced that human beings also have a "spark of the divine" within their physical body. This spark of the divine, usually termed "soul" or "spirit," depending on the system used, is what allows human beings to conceptualize the ideal plane, and is also the part of humanity with which God can communicate.
But this small flicker of the ideal is trapped in a physical body that is totally a part of the lower level of existence, which is to say, is totally evil. It cannot ever be anything other than that because that is the nature of physical existence.
So, there is constant struggle between the physical side and the "spiritual" side of human beings. But the "soul" can never master the "physical," so the only final solution to the struggle is to shed the physical body and move to the ideal plane of existence, which for human beings is death.
Thus is born the concept of the immortality of the soul, a "spirit" trapped in an evil physical body that needs to be shed so that the "real" us can move on to that ideal level of perfection that we can never reach as long as we are trapped in physical existence.
This has implications is many areas, such as thinking about how God works with humans.
In this view, humans can never be transformed into anything other than sinful beings as long as they live in a body that is by definition sinful. They cannot really obey God, so God does what is necessary on their behalf in Christ.
Since Christ was righteous, God in His grace has decreed that the righteousness of Christ is to be counted as the technical term is imputed the righteousness of humanity. Continuing the logical metaphor of "top-bottom," as God looks down at humanity, he would see their evil and sinfulness.
But Christ serves as the mediator coming between God and sinful humanity, so that when God looks at humanity, he sees the righteousness of Christ. The righteousness of Christ is counted as human righteousness.QUESTION. It seems to me that divine foreknowledge does not eliminate human free will, but several people that I know believe that it does.
They say that if God knows what will happen tomorrow, that means it is an established fact, removing any free will choices one might make tomorrow.
In his essay on the possibility of God’s having middle knowledge of the actions of free agents and the relationship of that knowledge, if it exists, to the problem of evil, RM Adams discusses two questions: firstly, whether middle knowledge is possible, even for God, and secondly, whether God could have made free creatures who would always freely do right.
In this essay I will discuss Leibniz’s position that divine foreknowledge of all events is compatible with human freedom and why it is that I. The Foreknowledge of God. A Critique of Greg Boyd's Open Theism.
In this essay I will interact with several of Dr. Boyd’s key proof texts, though space does not permit dealing with all of them. the ‘Choose Your Own Adventure’ structure of world history and of our lives within which the possibilities of human free choice are.
The statement of the compatibility and mutual exclusiveness of God’s precognition and human free will hold been traveling on for s of old ages. Refering the definition of freedom.
to acquire a better apprehension. can be described as an act [ ]. This paper will attempt to briefly analyze the theological meaning of God’s foreknowledge, especially as to how God’s foreknowledge relates to His decree.
The format that the writer will utilize to outline this study will follow a grammatical, Biblical, theological, and applicational analysis of the term "foreknowledge".