ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Philetus]

I'm not ruling out God being atemporal since I don't know for sure. It's quite possible that He is, but it's unarguable for me to say so with no proof. Molina, however, has offered a great proof for foreknowledge which apparently open theism is embracing; unless I'm reading Godrulz and Muz wrong.

You are. Exhaustively.

 

[themuzicman]

In respone to #3) The future is unknowable

Does John 17:12 define Judas' future or not? Should the scripture read:

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except (maybe) the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture (might)would be fulfilled.​

Once again, Rob is either intentionally playing word games, or fails to grasp the difference between an out come occurring in all possible futures and only having ONE possible future.

I doubt he'll ever get it.

This is true except the word 'already'. God foreknows because He foreknows the causes; or He sees the causes in action if atemporal.

God can't "Fore"know if he's atemporal. "Fore"knowing means that someone knows "before" it happens. There is no "before" or "after" in atemporality.

This is bringing something about through His own power. Need I get the posts from yourself and Godrulz which proves you believe this.

Sheesh...

If so then God would have to coerce creation to yield a result. Welcome to Calvin's dilemna.

Since I'm not a Calvinist, I don't have this problem.

John 17:12 While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Open theists must say either:

1) God foreknew Judas would be doomed
2) God coerced Judas to be doomed

However, this does NOT REQUIRE that God have exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of the exact course of the future that would lead to Judas' death. This is where you continue to play word games. You're morphing "foreknowledge" away from Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge into the idea that God knows what things will happen in all possible courses of the future.

Can you wrap your mind around that?

Muz's #3) God didn't foreknow anything because the future is unknowable

Again, you're doing nothing more than playing words games.

Christ, who is God, foretells of Judas' reprobation.

Muz's addendum #3a) The scripture is wrongly interpreted.

By who?

Never said that. You're putting words in my mouth, now.

Muz's addendum #3b) Christ foreknew because God had no intention of giving Judas grace

God knows what God intends to do or not do. What a SHOCK. Do YOU know what you intend to do or not do? Or are you greater than God.

This sounds like coercion towards reprobation to me.

Judas was already a sinner when Christ called him to the twelve. Gos has ZERO OBLIGATION TO DRAW ANYONE. Thus, no coercion at all.

Again, you continue to play your usual word games.

Muz's addendum #3c) Christ said this after Judas had determined His own reprobation.

LOL... Again, putting words in my mouth.

Then how about this:

John 6:70 Then Jesus replied, "Have I not chosen you, the Twelve? Yet one of you is a devil!" 71(He meant Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot, who, though one of the Twelve, was later to betray him.)​

This happened before this time and Christ's prayer. Judas hadn't decided or acted yet. So any outcome was still possible. Also, 'so that Scripture would be fulfilled', points to a specific culmination of foreknown events.

And you know this... how?

Muz's addendum #3d) The scripture was merely illustrative. Christ used it to accentuate His point.

Again, putting words in my mouth. The ways of the ones who have lost and can't admit it.

Once again, you've demonstrated your inability to get outside of your own presuppositions, and your willingness to engage in word games and idiocy to try to further the discussion.

Well, you've been pwn3d once again.

Muz

 

[RobE]

I wanted to address this with you in a sensible way.

The two motif concept gets around the cake issue.

C. God knows some aspects of the future. He can and does intervene sometimes, but not all the time. He can predestine some things and make them come to pass by His ability (nothing to do with EDF)...see Is. 46 and 48 for this principle (but do not extrapolate it without warrant from a specific thing to an exhaustive generalization). He settles some things, but leaves other aspects of the future open and unsettled.

This two motif principle explains all of the proof texts. Determinism or foreknowledge only deals with one set of texts, while making the other theme figurative.

Motif 1: God knows some aspects of the future.​

How?
1) He foreknows those outcomes through supernatural ability or deductive reasoning
2) He foreknows those outcomes because He coerces those outcomes.

Motif 2: God doesn't know other aspects of the future.​

Why?
3) He is unable to foreknow free acts because that is logically absurd.
4) He is unwilling to look upon(or figure out) evil or mundane acts in the future or present. (Enyart)

Do you see that the idea 'God is unable to foreknow free acts because that is absurd' destroys Motif 1; unless you choose to say God coerces free acts to produce outcomes?

Motif 1 is declared logically absurd by Motif 2 unless Calvin was right!

You might declare that this is untrue, but that would be having your cake and eating it too!

--------------------------------------

Enyart's solution maintains Motif 1 and Motif 2 and is arguable on these basis:

A. Evil cannot exist in the presence of God. Where God is present evil is extinguished. Like the dark receeding from the light, evil disappears in His presence.
B. God doesn't care if you eat Cheerios or Fruit Loops for breakfast, so He doesn't bother to figure it out.​

However, the Life of Christ and Divine judgement are formidable opponents to this idea.

The main objection would be that evil or mundane acts might influence outcomes and must therefore be known. Also, God often foretells of evil acts. How could this be if He refuses to know them?

--------------------------------------

Does this explain to you why I believe there is a conflict between the two Motifs? Are you able to see that the only resolution for them is to assume Calvin correct and God simply Decrees all known acts?

The only viable alternative left is that foreknowledge and free will co-exist; and that the perceived absurdity is false. You disagree with Calvinism in total, why do you accept the thinking which spawned it?

 

[themuzicman]

I'm not ruling out God being atemporal since I don't know for sure. It's quite possible that He is, but it's unarguable for me to say so with no proof. Molina, however, has offered a great proof for foreknowledge which apparently open theism is embracing; unless I'm reading Godrulz and Muz wrong.

Again, your lack of intelligence fails you.

Molina said that God knows what all moral "free" will agents WILL DO in any given circumstance (middle knowledge), giving God access to knowing the exact course of the future when He actualizes. The problem is that Molinists have no explanation for how God knows what all possible agents will do in any given circumstance before those agents every exist (including those that will NEVER exist.)

OVT denies this.

Of course, you probably can't grasp the difference.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

God's word does use foreknow and determined in the same verse: Romans 8:29

 

[RobE]

Once again, Rob is either intentionally playing word games, or fails to grasp the difference between an out come occurring in all possible futures and only having ONE possible future.

I doubt he'll ever get it.

Muz. You claim that you aren't using modal logic to come to your conclusions, but I see differently.

Is it possible Judas becomes reprobate in all possible futures and not just in one possible future?

Does foreknowledge of free will acts in all possible futures let you claim that it's absurd for foreknowledge and free will to co-exist in any possible future?

It seems to me that it is a statement of the opposite. Are you going to try to have your cake and eat it too?

God can't "Fore"know if he's atemporal. "Fore"knowing means that someone knows "before" it happens. There is no "before" or "after" in atemporality.

Your forgetting that God is foreknowing of a temporal event which does have a before and after. Just because creation is temporal doesn't mean that the One who wasn't created is.

Sheesh...

Egads!

Since I'm not a Calvinist, I don't have this problem.

But this it what makes a Calvinist a Calvinist. A Calvinist by any other name is still wrong.

However, this does NOT REQUIRE that God have exhaustive, definite foreknowledge of the exact course of the future that would lead to Judas' death. This is where you continue to play word games. You're morphing "foreknowledge" away from Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge into the idea that God knows what things will happen in all possible courses of the future.

Can you wrap your mind around that?

Are we able to conclude that God's knowledge of all events relating to this events must be foreknown and therefore exhaustive in nature? The only other option is for God to decree and bring about the events through raw power.

God knows what God intends to do or not do. What a SHOCK. Do YOU know what you intend to do or not do? Or are you greater than God.

Sure. My intentions however are often thwarted because I'm not able to bring them about. This can't be said of Our Lord.

Judas was already a sinner when Christ called him to the twelve. God has ZERO OBLIGATION TO DRAW ANYONE. Thus, no coercion at all.

This logic is completely valid. Nang would agree. I on the other hand would find this less than satisfactory when considering that God wants all to be saved by my theology. Your's, again, must be akin to Calvinism in some way.

Again, you continue to play your usual word games.

These aren't my words they're Christ's. My words are meaningless here.

LOL... Again, putting words in my mouth.

I should have written: Pre-responses to Muz's possible objections 3a, etc....
I didn't mean to present that they were your words. I know you don't listen to yourself, so I apologize for my error in word choice.

This happened before this time and Christ's prayer. Judas hadn't decided or acted yet. So any outcome was still possible. Also, 'so that Scripture would be fulfilled', points to a specific culmination of foreknown events.

And you know this... how?

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Because Christ said so.

 

[RobE]

Again, your lack of intelligence fails you.

Molina said that God knows what all moral "free" will agents WILL DO in any given circumstance (middle knowledge), giving God access to knowing the exact course of the future when He actualizes. The problem is that Molinists have no explanation for how God knows what all possible agents will do in any given circumstance before those agents every exist (including those that will NEVER exist.)

OVT denies this.

Of course, you probably can't grasp the difference.

Muz

You should brush up on your Molinism, my dear friend Muz.....

Molinism

However, the Molinists maintain that, since, as we remarked above, the predetermining decrees of the Divine Will must logically and necessarily destroy freedom and lead to Determinism, they cannot possibly be the medium in which God infallibly foresees future free acts. Rather these decrees must presuppose a special knowledge (scientia media), in the light of which God infallibly foresees from all eternity what attitude man's will would in any conceivable combination of circumstances assume if this or that particular grace were offered it.

This is foreknowledge of all possible worlds in accordance with your own ideas.

 

[themuzicman]

God's word does use foreknow and determined in the same verse: Romans 8:29

And God does foreknow and determine our resurrection. That is true.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Because Christ said so.

Show me in the prophecy where it says that this guy's name will be Judas, and that he will take guards to a garden and then he will kiss Jesus to point him out.

Or maybe you should start with looking at the verse that Jesus is actually referring to.

Post the verse and then point out where all the details that point us directly to Judas before Jesus picks him.

Muz

 

[RobE]

God's word does use foreknow and determined in the same verse: Romans 8:29

I'm sure you aren't going to run to the security of Calvinism as your friends are doing. We've come to the end. Open theist's must support Calvinism or deny it through accepting that free will exists with foreknowledge present. The end is near. Or will you, dear Philetus, choose to have your cake and eat it too?

 

[RobE]

Show me in the prophecy where it says that this guy's name will be Judas, and that he will take guards to a garden and then he will kiss Jesus to point him out.

Or maybe you should start with looking at the verse that Jesus is actually referring to.

Post the verse and then point out where all the details that point us directly to Judas before Jesus picks him.

Muz

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Are you saying, along with Calvin, that God coerced Judas into eternal damnation to accomplish His own ends? What happened to the loving, relational God of open theism? I'll provide the verses if you insist, but you know them already. Open your eyes.

 

[Philetus]

RobE: Teach me with my own words, so that I might see what you see.

I wanted to address this with you in a sensible way.

My words are meaningless here.

I know you don't listen to yourself, so I apologize for my error in word choice.

... but I see differently.

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

Because Christ said so.

Because Christ said what?

Are you assuming that the Scripture being fulfilled are scriptures about Judas or is it feasible that Jesus is referring to Scripture about Himself being fulfilled?



When asked about foreknowledge in a court of law, one is being asked about knowledge of the intentions of others before the action. “Did you know what they were planning? Did you have any foreknowledge of the crime?” That’s a reasonable definition of ‘foreknowledge’ and makes perfect sense in scriptural context. In the case of individuals or groups ‘foreknowledge’ of their own intentions, its referred to as premeditation or conspiracy.

 

[themuzicman]

John 17:12 'While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction' so that Scripture would be fulfilled.​

I was referring to the Scripture that was being fulfilled... You know, the OT prophecy that Jesus was referring to?

Are you saying, along with Calvin, that God coerced Judas into eternal damnation to accomplish His own ends?

I already explained this to you. This is the LAST TIME.

JUDAS WAS REPROBATE BECAUSE OF HIS OWN SIN, WHICH HE COMMITTED LONG BEFORE JESUS CALLED HIM. THIS WAS CAUSED BY JUDAS' OWN CHOICE TO SIN. GOD IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO DRAW ANYONE TO SALVATION, AND GOD'S CHOICE NOT TO DRAW SOMEONE IN NO WAY COERCES THEM INTO ANYTHING.

I doubt the caps, bold and italic will make you understand it, but it may keep you from ignoring it, this time.

What happened to the loving, relational God of open theism?

He's also just. Maybe you forgot that.

I'll provide the verses if you insist, but you know them already. Open your eyes.

You've already asserted that the details of Judas' life and death are prophesied. You've yet to show us what was prophesied and how you get from that verse to what you claim.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

I'm sure you aren't going to run to the security of Calvinism as your friends are doing. We've come to the end. Open theist's must support Calvinism or deny it through accepting that free will exists with foreknowledge present. The end is near. Or will you, dear Philetus, choose to have your cake and eat it too?

None is so blind as he who will not see.

What Open theists are rejecting is Calvinism AND YOUR distorted view of 'foreknowledge".
You are so whacked out, RobE.

Open Theists are keeping their cake and eating yours for lunch.

Tasty.
Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

God's word does use foreknow and determined in the same verse: Romans 8:29

Certainly, that doesn't mean though that everything God foreknows, he also predestines, so Open Theists saying foreknowledge in prophecy is really foreordination, and bringing it about, is not shown by this passage.

 

[lee_merrill]

JUDAS WAS REPROBATE BECAUSE OF HIS OWN SIN, WHICH HE COMMITTED LONG BEFORE JESUS CALLED HIM. THIS WAS CAUSED BY JUDAS' OWN CHOICE TO SIN.

What verse are you referring to here, please? the verse that shows Judas committed a sin long before Jesus called him, that doomed him to betray Jesus, a decision he could not reverse.

 

[RobE]

Because Christ said what?

That Judas' destruction was fulfillment of scripture.

Are you assuming that the Scripture being fulfilled are scriptures about Judas or is it feasible that Jesus is referring to Scripture about Himself being fulfilled?

I assume it's about Judas since he's the object of the sentence.

'...so that Scripture would be fulfilled.' refers to 'None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction'

When asked about foreknowledge in a court of law, one is being asked about knowledge of the intentions of others before the action. “Did you know what they were planning? Did you have any foreknowledge of the crime?” That’s a reasonable definition of ‘foreknowledge’ and makes perfect sense in scriptural context. In the case of individuals or groups ‘foreknowledge’ of their own intentions, its referred to as premeditation or conspiracy.

If you consider responsibility transferred in this way then open theism has the same problem.

"Did you see what they were doing?", "Did you intervene or try to stop it?".

Allowance is allowance, whether foreknown or not. Are those who stand by and watch lest culpable then those who foreknew and did nothing? Conspiracy or premeditation requires cooperation, not just observance. Your analogy is wrong.

 

[themuzicman]

What verse are you referring to here, please? the verse that shows Judas committed a sin long before Jesus called him, that doomed him to betray Jesus, a decision he could not reverse.

Romans 3:23 - "All ahve sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

Judas was already a sinner before Jesus called him.

That has nothing to do with whether Judas would betray Christ.

Muz

 

[Philetus]

That Judas' destruction was fulfillment of scripture.



I assume it's about Judas since he's the object of the sentence.

'...so that Scripture would be fulfilled.' refers to 'None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction'



If you consider responsibility transferred in this way then open theism has the same problem.

"Did you see what they were doing?", "Did you intervene or try to stop it?".

Allowance is allowance, whether foreknown or not. Are those who stand by and watch lest culpable then those who foreknew and did nothing? Conspiracy or premeditation requires cooperation, not just observance. Your analogy is wrong.

You miss the whole point. Surprise.

Your response makes the U.S. government responsible for all the crimes committed by its citizens. They provide the freedom.

The analogy has nothing to do with the culpability of God. It has only to do with what He knows and when He knows it.

God's foreknowledge of the intended actions of others doesn't happen billions of years or even moments before they make the plans or willfully intend to do evil. It's called freedom. God knows the intentions of others when they intend not before.

Don't even try to play the 'then that makes God responsible for their actions' card. God never sanctions or causes evil.

Sorry, RobE. The future doesn't exist except in the imaginations and intentions of both God and man. Again its simply a matter of God given freedom. The question is which future is shaping the other and to what degree. In spite of the willful intentions to thwart God's plans, I'll put all my money on God's ultimate plans for the future, not because it already exists but because God is able. It's called hope. It is faith in God, not faith in the future.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Certainly, that doesn't mean though that everything God foreknows, he also predestines, so Open Theists saying foreknowledge in prophecy is really foreordination, and bringing it about, is not shown by this passage.

"God knew what he was doing from the very beginning. He decided from the outset to shape the lives of those who love him along the same lines as the life of his Son. The Son stands first in the line of humanity he restored. We see the original and intended shape of our lives there in him. After God made that decision of what his children should be like, he followed it up by calling people by name. After he called them by name, he set them on a solid basis with himself. And then, after getting them established, he stayed with them to the end, gloriously completing what he had begun."​

Romans 8:29-30​

God knew what he was doing from the very beginning. It says absolutely nothing about knowing with exhaustive foreknowledge what individuals would or wouldn't do in the future. God calls us by name AFTER we have been given a name ... not before; when we exist, not before.

Great plan.
Philetus