Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John 6:64

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by nikolai_42 View Post
    I do. I assume God knew specifically what would have to happen long before Jesus appeared and determined what and who.
    Amen.

    Psalm 41:9

    Of course God knew and God predicted and God fulfilled and God accomplishes (without fail) all His good purposes and pleasure, in all things.

    Including the role designated by God that Judas Iscariot was to play, in the historical out-workings of all the above . . .

    Any conception of God that does not acknowledge such truths, is simply an unbelieving denial of God, substituted with various idolatriesconsisting of lesser imaginary concepts of His reality, altogether!
    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
    Gordon H. Clark

    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
    Charles Spurgeon

    Comment


    • #17
      Did Judas ever have the genuine opportunity to repent and not be the one through whom prophecy was fulfilled?
      "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
      Terence Mc Lean

      [most will be very surprised]


      Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
      By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by nikolai_42 View Post
        I'm saying Jesus knew from the beginning of His ministry (if not before):

        1. That He was to choose someone who would fulfill the scripture.
        2. That the Father was to give Him someone specific.
        3. That He knew - specifically - who this was before even seeing him.
        These are all assumptions. Especially the last one.

        I say especially the last one because the other to make sense based on what we now know. The last one is unnecessary; He did need to know who it would be before meeting Judas.

        Originally posted by nikolai_42 View Post
        I do. I assume God knew specifically what would have to happen long before Jesus appeared and determined what and who.
        It is the who that is the worst assumption, based on the evidence.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
          These are all assumptions. Especially the last one.

          I say especially the last one because the other to make sense based on what we now know. The last one is unnecessary; He did need to know who it would be before meeting Judas.


          It is the who that is the worst assumption, based on the evidence.
          I'm pretty sure the "knew" implies specific, personal (fore)knowledge.

          Assuming that it isn't the case - and then building a theology around that sort of assumption - to me seems dangerous.
          If God promises life, He slayeth first; when He builds, He casteth all down first. God is no patcher; He cannot build on another's foundation. - William Tyndale

          The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
          Jeremiah 17:9

          Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God.
          Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have of mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.

          Isaiah 50:10-11

          Comment


          • #20
            I reckon that Jesus was just very wise and discerning of peoples manners and thoughts. After all, he of all people must know what his own followers are like. I reckon that he saw through the shallow believers the minute he met them.

            Reading John 6:64 can lead to this interpretation or your interpretation or perhaps some others. It neither aids nor abets the open perspective on things. I would not use this passage to say "Therefore the open view is true."
            But i should probably warn you, that every once in awhile, I actually do speak the Truth! - Arsenios

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by TIPlatypus View Post
              I reckon that Jesus was just very wise and discerning of peoples manners and thoughts. After all, he of all people must know what his own followers are like. I reckon that he saw through the shallow believers the minute he met them.

              Reading John 6:64 can lead to this interpretation or your interpretation or perhaps some others. It neither aids nor abets the open perspective on things. I would not use this passage to say "Therefore the open view is true."
              I wouldn't use any passage to show that the open view was true. What one should do is properly explain the meaning of the passage as far as it was clear and show whether it was consistent or not with one's view (whatever that is). People who use the Bible to prove their point of view are often just abusing the text.

              It's a bit like the scientific method: an observation that conforms to some theory is not a proof of the theory, merely evidence of it. Proof doesn't exist. Proof does of course exist in other realms, particularly in logic. And whilst most statements of belief are generalisations and have exceptions or are subjective or are relative, it is possible for absolutely true statements to be made. I am not denying that. I am not denying that any doctrine can be true. I am just affirming that in accordance with openness theology, absolute statements, (or doctrines) particularly about the nature of God are not the primary focus of Biblical Christianity and that useful theologies ought rather to focus on relationships and ethics.
              Last edited by Desert Reign; March 24th, 2015, 01:35 PM.
              Total Misanthropy.
              Uncertain salvation.
              Luck of the draw.
              Irresistible damnation.
              Persecution of the saints.

              Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
              (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

              RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
              Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
              Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

              Comment


              • #22
                FYI: None of my questions here are laced with sarcasm. I seek clarification. Thanks

                Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                I wouldn't use any passage to show that the open view was true. What one should do is properly explain the meaning of the passage as far as it was clear and show whether it was consistent or not with one's view (whatever that is). People who use the Bible to prove their point of view are often just abusing the text.
                Desert Reign: So, it sounds like the meaning of the text than is relative, for one can give a meaning to it, as long as it's consistent with one's view . . . whatever that is? So, no true, objective meaning just whatever it means to you.

                But in your last paragraph, you say that absolutes can be made, pointing to relational and ethical theologies [you made an 'ought' statment].

                Am I getting that correct? Who is to say if one is not consistent in one's understanding if the Bible is not used? For example, one can see clearly in Scripture that it is correct to go stone an adulterer to death, for it aligns with the interpreters view, and so seeking to be consistent, one does so. Who is to say that that person is wrong if we don't use the Bible and proper context to make a correction in his understanding? He might find it consistent to live in an OT context, similar to theonomy, and enforce OT law.

                Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                It's a bit like the scientific method: an observation that conforms to some theory is not a proof of the theory, merely evidence of it. Proof doesn't exist. Proof does of course exist in other realms, particularly in logic.
                And whilst most statements of belief are generalisations and have exceptions or are subjective or are relative, it is possible for absolutely true statements to be made. I am not denying that. I am not denying that any doctrine can be true.
                Your section below is helpful.

                So, the OV perfers to not make absolute doctrinal statements about the nature of God but make absolute 'ought' [I believe an 'ought' statement is an absolute statement, so correct me if that is not what you are implying] theologies on relationships and ethics?

                Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                I am just affirming that in accordance with openness theology, absolute statements, (or doctrines) particularly about the nature of God are not the primary focus of Biblical Christianity and that useful theoligies ought rather to focus on relationships and ethics.
                Thanks
                Last edited by BrianJOrr; March 24th, 2015, 06:01 PM.
                —Romans 11:36


                http://therantingreformer.com
                https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by nikolai_42 View Post
                  I'm pretty sure the "knew" implies specific, personal (fore)knowledge.

                  Assuming that it isn't the case - and then building a theology around that sort of assumption - to me seems dangerous.
                  I'm not assuming anything. Do you actually want the Scriptures or are you arrogant?
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                    I'm not assuming anything. Do you actually want the Scriptures or are you arrogant?


                    What an arrogant question to ask . . . considering the stated goals and interest in OT already put forth by Mr. Orr.
                    "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

                    " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
                    Gordon H. Clark

                    "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
                    Charles Spurgeon

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally Posted by TIPlatypus View Post
                      I reckon that Jesus was just very wise and discerning of peoples manners and thoughts. After all, he of all people must know what his own followers are like. I reckon that he saw through the shallow believers the minute he met them.

                      Reading John 6:64 can lead to this interpretation or your interpretation or perhaps some others. It neither aids nor abets the open perspective on things. I would not use this passage to say "Therefore the open view is true."






                      Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                      I wouldn't use any passage to show that the open view was true. What one should do is properly explain the meaning of the passage as far as it was clear and show whether it was consistent or not with one's view (whatever that is). People who use the Bible to prove their point of view are often just abusing the text.

                      It's a bit like the scientific method: an observation that conforms to some theory is not a proof of the theory, merely evidence of it. Proof doesn't exist. Proof does of course exist in other realms, particularly in logic. And whilst most statements of belief are generalisations and have exceptions or are subjective or are relative, it is possible for absolutely true statements to be made. I am not denying that. I am not denying that any doctrine can be true. I am just affirming that in accordance with openness theology, absolute statements, (or doctrines) particularly about the nature of God are not the primary focus of Biblical Christianity and that useful theologies ought rather to focus on relationships and ethics.
                      great points ! -


                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by BrianJOrr View Post
                        Desert Reign: So, it sounds like the meaning of the text than is relative, for one can give a meaning to it, as long as it's consistent with one's view . . . whatever that is? So, no true, objective meaning just whatever it means to you.
                        As previously stated, the meaning of a text is determined by itself. It is not relative to the reader.

                        But in your last paragraph, you say that absolutes can be made, pointing to relational and ethical theologies [you made an 'ought' statment].
                        What I said is true. It is logically provable that absolute truth exists. Whether some particular statement is absolutely true or not can only be determined by a particular examination of that statement.

                        Who is to say if one is not consistent in one's understanding if the Bible is not used?
                        The first test to apply to any theological system is its own internal coherence. If it is incoherent then you don't go any further. A system for example that says that God is both spirit and matter at the same time AND that spirit and matter cannot exist together is incoherent.

                        The second test is to ask if it is rational. This means does it make sense in the real world? An example would be a theological system the consequence of which is a requirement on its members to put themselves voluntarily and arbitrarily in unusual danger is irrational.

                        The third test is to ask if the theological system is realistic. This means testing to see if belief in the system necessarily brings about some change to the way its adherent lives. By this I mean that the change must be demanded as a logical consequence of belief, not merely as a voluntary choice of the adherent. For example, the belief that a supreme being created the world and then let the world carry on without further involvement, by definition does not demand any particular course of action on the part of the believer.

                        When these tests have been done and the theological system has survived, then and only then it is appropriate to test to see if it is Biblical. This means that it should be consistent with the proper meaning of the text.

                        For example, one can see clearly in Scripture that it is correct to go stone an adulterer to death, for it aligns with the interpreters view, and so seeking to be consistent, one does so. Who is to say that that person is wrong if we don't use the Bible and proper context to make a correction in his understanding? He might find it consistent to live in an OT context, similar to theonomy, and enforce OT law.
                        You are asking a hypothetical question. The true (and obvious) meaning of the texts you are referring to is that the national (theocratic) laws of ancient Israel required punishment of stoning for adulterers. What you say

                        see clearly in Scripture that it is correct to go stone an adulterer to death,
                        goes well beyond the proper meaning of the text.

                        Your section below is helpful.

                        So, the OV perfers to not make absolute doctrinal statements about the nature of God but make absolute 'ought' [I believe an 'ought' statement is an absolute statement, so correct me if that is not what you are implying] theologies on relationships and ethics?
                        No. That is not what I said. But you can see an example of New Testament ethical principles in the church's declaration that non-Jews need not be circumcised and only 'should' abstain from eating blood, fornication, etc. together with a contextual reason explaining the exhortation in verse 21. It depends on exactly what we mean by 'absolute'. In terms of ethics, what is often meant by that is there is some ethical rule ('moral') that originates outside the created world and which must be obeyed for that reason. Openness doesn't teach this (at least not my version). What I teach is that right and wrong are determined by the context of each action, which is an analogous principle to the way Biblical hermeneutics (indeed all hermeneutics) should be done. My comments to The Incredible Platypus about absolute statements were intended as a concession because it would not be logically tenable to assert truthfully that no statements are absolutely true as that would be self-defeating. It doesn't change the fact that openness is about relationships, not about doctrinal statements (or absolute ethical rules). Openness steers away from doctrinal statements in the same way and for the same reason as it steers away from absolute moral rules.

                        If you want a text that is consistent with this point of view you need only look at Paul's teaching that the letter of the law kills. Once you make a law, you divorce the principle of the law from its context. You in effect enslave the person whom the law governs because you make him comply with this law regardless of the circumstances that he might be in afterwards.

                        And in any case, the Mosaic law itself was not so negative. Most of its commands were casuistic and the most famous laws, the 10 commandments, were amongst the few that were outright apodictic.
                        Last edited by Desert Reign; March 25th, 2015, 05:21 PM.
                        Total Misanthropy.
                        Uncertain salvation.
                        Luck of the draw.
                        Irresistible damnation.
                        Persecution of the saints.

                        Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                        (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                        RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                        Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                        Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                          As previously stated, the meaning of a text is determined by itself. It is not relative to the reader.


                          What I said is true. It is logically provable that absolute truth exists. Whether some particular statement is absolutely true or not can only be determined by a particular examination of that statement.

                          The first test to apply to any theological system is its own internal coherence. If it is incoherent then you don't go any further. A system for example that says that God is both spirit and matter at the same time AND that spirit and matter cannot exist together is incoherent.
                          I agree

                          Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                          The second test is to ask if it is rational. This means does it make sense in the real world? An example would be a theological system the consequence of which is a requirement on its members to put themselves voluntarily and arbitrarily in unusual danger is irrational.
                          What do you mean by ‘real world’? The Christian life asks exactly that of us, to take up our cross, to be willing to lose our life in this world to gain our life in him. We are to be hated for the name of Christ (Matthew 10:22, 39; 16:24; Luke 9:24-25; Acts 5:41; Romans 8:17, 36; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:12; 1 Peter 5:10; ). So to ‘the world,’ the Christian life is completely irrational. Wouldn’t you have to say, according to the real world, the Christian faith fails the second test? Ultimately, you will have to define for me what the ‘real world’ is. One has to be a Christian to see that the Christian life is rational. I would refer to 1 Corinthians 1-2 on this.

                          Originally posted by Desert Reign View Post
                          The third test is to ask if the theological system is realistic. This means testing to see if belief in the system necessarily brings about some change to the way its adherent lives. By this I mean that the change must be demanded as a logical consequence of belief, not merely as a voluntary choice of the adherent. For example, the belief that a supreme being created the world and then let the world carry on without further involvement, by definition does not demand any particular course of action on the part of the believer.

                          When these tests have been done and the theological system has survived, then and only then it is appropriate to test to see if it is Biblical. This means that it should be consistent with the proper meaning of the text.

                          You are asking a hypothetical question. The true (and obvious) meaning of the texts you are referring to is that the national (theocratic) laws of ancient Israel required punishment of stoning for adulterers. What you say

                          goes well beyond the proper meaning of the text.

                          No. That is not what I said. But you can see an example of New Testament ethical principles in the church's declaration that non-Jews need not be circumcised and only 'should' abstain from eating blood, fornication, etc. together with a contextual reason explaining the exhortation in verse 21. It depends on exactly what we mean by 'absolute'. In terms of ethics, what is often meant by that is there is some ethical rule ('moral') that originates outside the created world and which must be obeyed for that reason. Openness doesn't teach this (at least not my version). What I teach is that right and wrong are determined by the context of each action, which is an analogous principle to the way Biblical hermeneutics (indeed all hermeneutics) should be done. My comments to The Incredible Platypus about absolute statements were intended as a concession because it would not be logically tenable to assert truthfully that no statements are absolutely true as that would be self-defeating. It doesn't change the fact that openness is about relationships, not about doctrinal statements (or absolute ethical rules). Openness steers away from doctrinal statements in the same way and for the same reason as it steers away from absolute moral rules.

                          If you want a text that is consistent with this point of view you need only look at Paul's teaching that the letter of the law kills. Once you make a law, you divorce the principle of the law from its context. You in effect enslave the person whom the law governs because you make him comply with this law regardless of the circumstances that he might be in afterwards.

                          And in any case, the Mosaic law itself was not so negative. Most of its commands were casuistic and the most famous laws, the 10 commandments, were amongst the few that were outright apodictic.
                          Would you say that it is because of the New Testament that you are able to provide the proper context to arrive at the answers you just gave?
                          —Romans 11:36


                          http://therantingreformer.com
                          https://columbiaseminary.academia.edu/BrianOrr

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by BrianJOrr View Post
                            What do you mean by ‘real world’? The Christian life asks exactly that of us, to take up our cross, to be willing to lose our life in this world to gain our life in him. We are to be hated for the name of Christ (Matthew 10:22, 39; 16:24; Luke 9:24-25; Acts 5:41; Romans 8:17, 36; Philippians 1:29; 2 Timothy 2:12; 1 Peter 5:10; ). So to ‘the world,’ the Christian life is completely irrational. Wouldn’t you have to say, according to the real world, the Christian faith fails the second test? Ultimately, you will have to define for me what the ‘real world’ is. One has to be a Christian to see that the Christian life is rational. I would refer to 1 Corinthians 1-2 on this.
                            I expected you to twist my words again. 'Being willing to lose our life' is not the same as placing ourselves in unusual danger. 'We are to be hated' is not in the New Testament. Quite the opposite, the NT enjoins us to do all we can to get along with others.

                            Would you say that it is because of the New Testament that you are able to provide the proper context to arrive at the answers you just gave?
                            I have already answered this question. If you had an argument against what is a totally logical, rational and Biblical hermeneutic, you would have stated it by now. I explicitly said "And in any case, the Mosaic law itself was not so negative. Most of its commands were casuistic and the most famous laws, the 10 commandments, were amongst the few that were outright apodictic." And yet you persist with trying to get me to admit to saying the opposite. I have the feeling not that you can't listen but that don't want to listen. I feel that you are wasting my time and that Stripe was right that you are just looking for a straw man to link to. Instead of discussing the subject you are just trying to trap me, just trying to wheedle out of me some confession of inexactitude or inconsistency. I answered your questions honestly and as fully as I could in the time. It is you who have to come to terms with what I said. I have already come to terms with my beliefs. If you pursue this kind of approach to me, don't expect me to grace you with further answers.
                            Last edited by Desert Reign; March 27th, 2015, 06:09 AM.
                            Total Misanthropy.
                            Uncertain salvation.
                            Luck of the draw.
                            Irresistible damnation.
                            Persecution of the saints.

                            Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
                            (The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)

                            RevTestament: It doesn't matter to me too much that the "New Testament wasn't written in Hebrew.
                            Dialogos: Calvin, as a sinner, probably got some things wrong.
                            Brandplucked: I'm shocked that other people disagree with me.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by musterion View Post
                              Did Judas ever have the genuine opportunity to repent and not be the one through whom prophecy was fulfilled?
                              Opportunity but no inclination - His "repentance" consisted in feeling really bad about what he did, (so did Peter), but then instead of weeping bitterly and returning to the followers of Christ, Judas went to the Jews and returned the money complaining to them, and then killed himself... He did not wish to come back to the followers of Christ and beg forgiveness... That saving action on his part would have required a humility he did not possess. His arrogance would not permit it...

                              Both were fore-warned they would transgress...

                              The contrast between the Peter and Judas is worth studying...

                              The εξ αρχης would seem to mean "from the beginning" of His first encountering them within His ministry. And this because it is Jesus who is named, and not Christ, so that it is the Son of Man who knew, which places the knowing within time, whereas if it were out of the very absolute beginning of creation, it would not have been Jesus incarnate who knew, but Jesus the Logos of God who was pre-incarnate within "the Beginning" of all creation...

                              In addition, it would probably be knowledge that was revealed to Him by the Father, for the same reason, and not inherently His own incarnate perception of them...

                              Arsenios
                              Arsenios

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Nang View Post
                                Amen.

                                Psalm 41:9

                                Of course God knew and God predicted and God fulfilled and God accomplishes (without fail) all His good purposes and pleasure, in all things.

                                Including the role designated by God that Judas Iscariot was to play, in the historical out-workings of all the above . . .
                                The Orthodox understanding of this matter is that being timeless, God sees the end from the beginning, and the beginning from the end, and knows the hearts of the people involved in the action, so that while they have free will in their actions, God knows what they will end up actually doing, because He is seeing both their beginnings and their endings as a single event... It is His fore-knowledge of the outcomes that permits His provisioning of His Providence...

                                As to HOW He sees the whole of each life simultaneously from its inception to its departure from this earth, we do not pretend to know, and simply know that He does, and His seeing is a Mystery in which we live by His Faith given to us by Christ...

                                This is how free will and predestination coalesce... Pre-destination is only by fore-knowledge, which only God has, and we do not... So for us to speak of pre-destination is for us to err, because we are then speaking a Mystery we cannot explain, and do not have...

                                God does not fore-know because He pre-determines, but because He already sees what we will have done... Because He sees us from both the beginning and the finish of our earthly walk... He sees our future because in His seeing, we have already walked it...

                                In OUR seeing, of course, we have not YET walked our future...

                                Arsenios
                                Last edited by Arsenios; September 22nd, 2015, 10:59 PM.
                                Arsenios

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X