ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

WOW!

Rob, I'm so embarrassed that you are a Christian and can say something this stupid. I know saying this won't help you recognize how incredibly stupid what you are saying is. In fact it might entrench your stupidity more likely than not. I just had to say something so I wouldn't explode.

Well, perhaps if you were to be more specific about what was(why was it) stupid it would help.

Or, you could say, "okay, so, yeah, what I said was pretty stupid" and all would be forgiven. It would really make me feel better if you said that.

What I said might very well be stupid; however, I would need express details over the generalization to illuminate the problem.

Lon, AMR... would y'all show some wisdom and at least agree, "yeah, what Rob said was pretty stupid."?

That's a great idea. I'm always open to instruction by any valid source.

 

[lee_merrill]

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that Hezekiah would die, and then he didn't.

Open theism claims that it was foreknown that Tyre would be destroyed, and then it wasn't.

Every if-then statement assumes foreknowledge. - If foreknown A then foreknown B.

You can't have it both ways.... Open theism must say If maybe A then maybe B. This is true because all these events involve free will agents.

Sure, any prediction that predicts the outcome of a free-will choice must--by definition--be contingent in the Open View.

Open theism might argue that it was never foreknown in any of the 3 instances above, but then what happens to the idea that God changes His mind?

Ah... (Lee has no idea)

Foreknowledge must exist for open theists arguments to be valid.

Aha! Hadn't thought of that before.

What Rob said was pretty smart--I would say...

 

[Philetus]

Well, perhaps if you were to be more specific about what was(why was it) stupid it would help.

A great and wise momma once said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

RobE: What I said might very well be stupid; however, I would need express details over the generalization to illuminate the problem.

A great and wise redneck once said, "You can't fix stupid."

RobE: That's a great idea. I'm always open to instruction by any valid source.

Google 'stupid' and learn.

Lee:
Aha! Hadn't thought of that before.
What Rob said was pretty smart--I would say...

:sigh:

I guess it isn't only the poor who will be with us always.

 

[Philetus]

No. Anyone comprehending anything about Open Theism would know that the claim "Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh, and then He didn't" is simply untrue.

IT is so patently false, it's hard to fathom one could think it. Either you're making things up in a desperate attempt to discredit OVT, or you just don't get it.

Muz

:thumb: Gotta spread it around ...
Jonah didn't get it either.
Apparently stupid has been around for a very long time.
Deep cold water doesn't help.
Whale puke has been foreknown to have that effect on some.
Jogging to Nineveh doesn't cure it.
Even preaching for 40 days doesn't cure the preacher who has it.
Shade doesn't seem to help much either.
And not just Jonah; there is a lot of stupid out there:

11 And should I not be concerned about Nineveh, that great city, in which there are more than a 120,000 persons who do not know their right hand from their left, and also many animals?"​

Thank God for grace!
Not every body gets miffed when God changes His mind and relents.
I think worms get it,
Philetus

 

[lee_merrill]

:sigh:

I guess it isn't only the poor who will be with us always.

Yet we must not substitute insults for answers.

"Open theism might argue that it was never foreknown in any of the 3 instances above, but then what happens to the idea that God changes His mind?"

Let's step up to the plate.

 

[Lon]

Yes, OVT is very orthodox, in and of itself.

Muz

Careful, some of your compadres (not sure if MAD or just OV) will take issue with that where a distancing is desired/prefered.

 

[lee_merrill]

No. Anyone comprehending anything about Open Theism would know that the claim "Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh, and then He didn't" is simply untrue.

Certainly, the point is that God thought he knew what would happen, and then changed his mind, the Ninevite's decision was what was thought to be foreknown.

But the point still remains, there are definitely foreknown free decisions in prophecy, even in the area of decisions of salvation--this is a cardinal difficulty with Open Theism.

 

[godrulz]

Then how are you able to use conditional prophecies as proof of your position? Your position is only true if A is foreknown and B happens. B happening doesn't disprove Traditional Christianity's view of exhaustive foreknowledge in this case.

I would still like an answer to the problem Judas presents since I took the time to elaborate in my earlier post. I know you've answered it a thousand time, but you seem to ignore the fact of Jesus foretelling that one apostle will be the betrayer, before that same apostle made up his own mind. This is impossible for your position.

Jesus' prediction of Judas is very proximal to the event. It was not foreknown ages before Judas was even born. Judas was not always a betrayer. After praying, Jesus chose Judas as an apostle in his inner circle. If Judas was an object of exhaustive foreknowledge, the Father would not have chose him for the inner circle. Judas declined over time and became a betrayer and became possessed and a son of perdition. He was not these things early on and certainly not in eternity or from birth. As Judas' heart was changing, the Father gave Jesus this insight. God knew what Judas was doing behind the scenes and what was in His heart. This was revealed to Jesus during a short time period, not exhaustively in His preexistence.

 

[godrulz]

Certainly, the point is that God thought he knew what would happen, and then changed his mind, the Ninevite's decision was what was thought to be foreknown.

But the point still remains, there are definitely foreknown free decisions in prophecy, even in the area of decisions of salvation--this is a cardinal difficulty with Open Theism.

I'm not following your objections.

Conditional prophecy is 'if...then'. God predestined that if they repent, He would relent. If they did not repent, He would judge and not relent. The outcome was possible, not certain/actual before the fact.

God knew what He would do depending on how they responded to the preaching. Jonah is a case study of God not seeing the future as fatalistically fixed, but open. He knows how he will respond to various contingencies, but he does not settle or know them in advance.

Jonah must have been an open theist because it bugged him that God might change his mind/intentions if they responded properly to the preaching (Jonah wanted them judged, not extended mercy, unlike God, who wanted the opposite, with certain conditions).

 

[Philetus]

I'm not following your objections.

Conditional prophecy is 'if...then'. God predestined that if they repent, He would relent. If they did not repent, He would judge and not relent. The outcome was possible, not certain/actual before the fact.

God knew what He would do depending on how they responded to the preaching. Jonah is a case study of God not seeing the future as fatalistically fixed, but open. He knows how he will respond to various contingencies, but he does not settle or know them in advance.

Jonah must have been an open theist because it bugged him that God might change his mind/intentions if they responded properly to the preaching (Jonah wanted them judged, not extended mercy, unlike God, who wanted the opposite, with certain conditions).

On target!

The whole story is about God's judgment tempered by His compassion and the freedom of both the prophet and the people to respond.

Jonah must have been a recovering Calvinist. :crackup: Interesting how the story ends without telling us how Jonah made out.

 

[RobE]

Jesus' prediction of Judas is very proximal to the event. It was not foreknown ages before Judas was even born. Judas was not always a betrayer.

This happened far before the passover.

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.)​

Do you see the underlined scripture? That's part of the scripture as well. Pinnock claims that man added this comment to highlight scripture, but when we look further we see that Jesus was indeed speaking of Judas, John 17:12 , even before Judas knew his own desires.

John 7:30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.

Time? Did God have a foreknown time for the death of Christ?

John 7:33 Jesus said, "I am with you for only a short time, and then I go to the one who sent me. 34You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come."

Did God foreknow that free will agents would kill Him? This isn't possible for open theists to claim.

John 8:20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.

John 12:12 The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna!"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15"Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt."
16At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.​

Did God sqeeze all of these free will roosters? Was the entire crowd's free will overridden by God?

John 12:23 Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

What hour? Open theists are unable to say that this is true. The 'hour has come' is an expression of a foreknown time.

John 13:18 "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.'

To fulfill a scripture? Speaking of Judas directly, Christ predicts His own death again. Judas was still there.

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.​

In Christ's prayer, he acknowledges that Judas was lost BEFORE Judas made the decision. Open theism must claim that this occured through God's own action or accept that God foreknew the free will actions of Judas. Which is it?

After praying, Jesus chose Judas as an apostle in his inner circle. If Judas was an object of exhaustive foreknowledge, the Father would not have chose him for the inner circle.

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.

The scripture states that Judas was chosen 'so that the Scripture would be fulfilled'. Can there be any other translation?

Judas declined over time and became a betrayer and became possessed and a son of perdition. He was not these things early on and certainly not in eternity or from birth.

The scripture states that Judas was chosen 'so that the Scripture would be fulfilled'. Can there be any other translation?

How then does Jesus say, 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.)

Are the scriptures wrong that Jesus did not mean Judas Iscariot? If they aren't wrong then Jesus foreknew Judas' actions before they were sure according to open theism.

As Judas' heart was changing, the Father gave Jesus this insight. God knew what Judas was doing behind the scenes and what was in His heart. This was revealed to Jesus during a short time period, not exhaustively in His preexistence.

Matthew 26:14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.​

This happened 2 days before passover. It's when Judas made up his own mind. Long after Jesus proclaimed his betrayal.

Matthew 26: 20When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

22They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"

23Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."​

Is it your opinion that Judas asked, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" as a deceit, knowing full well that very night he would betray Christ? Or was Judas really inquiring whether it was true?

You see, open theism must claim that even at this point Judas was able to not betray Christ. How can this be unless the scriptures and Jesus are lying?

Open theists can say that God caused Judas to betray and brought about Christ's word through shear force. Open theists might say that Jesus foreknew what Judas' future actions would be, but this is foreknowledge --- so what happens to the openess of your theism?

 

[themuzicman]

If open theism claims this to be false: "Open theism claims that it was foreknown that God would destroy Nineveh"; then by what logic does open theism claim God changed His mind and the outcome?

If open theism claims that God had no intention whatsoever; then why did God send Jonah?

If open theism claims that God's intention was for Nineveh to repent and this was accomplished; then how is open theism's claim different from mine?

You're playing word games.

"Foreknowledge" isn't "intention." You might want to buy a dictionary and use it.

I can intend to do something without certainly foreknowing that I will do it. God expressed His intention to destroy Ninevah, but clearly this intention was conditional upon Ninevah rejecting Jonah's prophecy. (Even Jonah knew this, and says so.)

To summarize:

1) Mind changing or outcome changing requires foreknowledge to accomplish.

Incorrect. One does not have to certainly foreknow in order to intend. This is your word game.

2) Without assuming foreknowledge there is no proof that God's intention was always for Nineveh to repent.

Again, incorrect use of "foreknowledge." Buy a dictionary.

3) Open Theism relies on foreknowledge to support its positions.

Again, incorrect.

But thank you for demonstrating your lack of intelligence again.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Careful, some of your compadres (not sure if MAD or just OV) will take issue with that where a distancing is desired/prefered.

I'm not concerned. I'm not MAD.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

He knows how he will respond to various contingencies, but he does not settle or know them in advance.

Such as "only a remnant will be saved"? but Paul says "God will carry out his sentence on earth" in this matter (Rom. 9-11).

Jonah must have been an open theist because it bugged him that God might change his mind/intentions if they responded properly ...

So God changing his mind must mean--as Rob points out--an atypical meaning? It only means God chose another plan, and he had in mind to choose either?

That would not be called changing his mind, only changing his response.

 

[lee_merrill]

Note the complete lack of Scripture at this point in the Open View responses. Note the extensive use of Scripture in Rob's post, and the OVT preferred reply, typically (alas) for arguments, we have insults.

 

[themuzicman]

If Rob is your hero, then things do not bode well for you... lol

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

If Rob is your hero, then things do not bode well for you... lol

No argument. No Scripture. Yes insult.

Sad to say.

Would you like to address yourself to Rob's arguments from Scripture?

 

[themuzicman]

This happened far before the passover.

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.)​

Do you see the underlined scripture? That's part of the scripture as well. Pinnock claims that man added this comment to highlight scripture, but when we look further we see that Jesus was indeed speaking of Judas, John 17:12 , even before Judas knew his own desires.

This last statement is unsupportable. In fact, Judas was a thief, as is evidenced in Scripture, which demonstrates his own lack of character. The desire of Judas for Jesus to become the King of Israel no doubt appealed to him, as one of the 12.

John 7:30 At this they tried to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him, because his time had not yet come.

Time? Did God have a foreknown time for the death of Christ?

Not necessarily. All the text says is that this wasn't it.

John 7:33 Jesus said, "I am with you for only a short time, and then I go to the one who sent me. 34You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am, you cannot come."

Did God foreknow that free will agents would kill Him? This isn't possible for open theists to claim.

Actually, it is. Jesus isn't claiming a specific course of the future, but that all possible courses of the future lead to this. Thus, OVT is fine.

(More evidence that Rob can't get his mind around multiple courses of the future.)

John 8:20 He spoke these words while teaching in the temple area near the place where the offerings were put. Yet no one seized him, because his time had not yet come.

John 12:12 The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting,
"Hosanna!"
"Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!"
"Blessed is the King of Israel!" 14Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written,
15"Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion;
see, your king is coming,
seated on a donkey's colt."
16At first his disciples did not understand all this. Only after Jesus was glorified did they realize that these things had been written about him and that they had done these things to him.​

Did God sqeeze all of these free will roosters? Was the entire crowd's free will overridden by God?

LOL... Name for me a single OVTheist who says that animals have free will! (What a maroon...)

This entire crowd realized the significance of what Jesus was doing and responded appropriately.

John 12:23 Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified.

What hour? Open theists are unable to say that this is true. The 'hour has come' is an expression of a foreknown time.

No, it's an expression that this time will come soon. It's not a specific time.

John 13:18 "I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.'

To fulfill a scripture? Speaking of Judas directly, Christ predicts His own death again. Judas was still there.

Yes... someone was chosen because of their character, and that at some undefined point, they would do this. Again, OVT doesn't mean that prophecy isn't possible. You seem unable to grasp this, as well.

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.​

In Christ's prayer, he acknowledges that Judas was lost BEFORE Judas made the decision. Open theism must claim that this occured through God's own action or accept that God foreknew the free will actions of Judas. Which is it?

False dichotomy.

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.

The scripture states that Judas was chosen 'so that the Scripture would be fulfilled'. Can there be any other translation?

The translation isn't a problem. Again, Scripture may be fulfilled through a variety of courses of the future.

The scripture states that Judas was chosen 'so that the Scripture would be fulfilled'. Can there be any other translation?

Again, not a problem. Judas was chosen because he was the kind of person who would do this. We are let on to his character elsewhere.

How then does Jesus say, 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.)

Are the scriptures wrong that Jesus did not mean Judas Iscariot? If they aren't wrong then Jesus foreknew Judas' actions before they were sure according to open theism.

Again, you fail to grasp the idea that this doesn't require a certain and specific course of the future. You seem unable to break out of your own pre-programmed presuppositions. Fitting, I suppose.

Matthew 26:14 Then one of the Twelve—the one called Judas Iscariot—went to the chief priests 15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins. 16From then on Judas watched for an opportunity to hand him over.​

This happened 2 days before passover. It's when Judas made up his own mind. Long after Jesus proclaimed his betrayal.

Again, not a problem.

Matthew 26: 20When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

22They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"

23Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."​

Is it your opinion that Judas asked, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" as a deceit, knowing full well that very night he would betray Christ? Or was Judas really inquiring whether it was true?
[/quote]

Judas was trying to fit in, not wanting to be lynched.

You see, open theism must claim that even at this point Judas was able to not betray Christ. How can this be unless the scriptures and Jesus are lying?

Open theists can say that God caused Judas to betray and brought about Christ's word through shear force. Open theists might say that Jesus foreknew what Judas' future actions would be, but this is foreknowledge --- so what happens to the openess of your theism?

Again, you failure to grasp the concepts of OVT are betrayed by your own writings, and you simply aren't one to be taken seriously.

Muz

 

[RobE]

You're playing word games.

"Foreknowledge" isn't "intention." You might want to buy a dictionary and use it.

I forgot that we're snorkeling instead of skin diving here.

Intention requires an object of intent.

If foreknown A then foreknown B or foreknown C or foreknown D, etc.....

Intention isn't fulfilled if maybe A then maybe B, or maybe C, or maybe D, etc.....​

'A' must at least be foreknown. Otherwise it's impossible to prove a change of mind , intention, or anything else.

Open theism is handicapped if definite foreknowledge is impossible. We can put the LFW definition to work here without foreknowledge present.

If Nineveh(free will entities) might repent; then Nineveh might be destroyed or Nineveh might not be destroyed in the future.​

Without definite foreknowledge the argument is meaningless drivel.

If Nineveh definitely repents, then Nineveh definitely won't be destroyed in the future.
If Nineveh definitely doesn't repent, then Nineveh definitely will be destroyed in the future.​

An open theist is unable to present this argument because Nineveh is chocked full of free will agents. Definite foreknowledge is an illusion within open theism and LFW.

By my reasoning free will exists because of the definitely foreknown outcomes described above. Without this foreknowledge --- free will is defunct.

I can intend to do something without certainly foreknowing that I will do it.

That's true. However, you can't intend something without certain foreknowledge of your intended outcome. Especially if you're God and able to bring about that which you intend through raw unusurped power.

A man might say that I intended A, but B happened and I was helpless to stop it!

God expressed His intention to destroy Ninevah, but clearly this intention was conditional upon Ninevah rejecting Jonah's prophecy. (Even Jonah knew this, and says so.)

Then there were two intentions simultaneously. One for repentence and one for non-repentence.

God foreknew that if Nineveh repented they wouldn't be destroyed.
God foreknew that if Nineveh didn't repent they would be destroyed.​

Foreknowledge is the basis for intention.

How is open theism able to use foreknowledge of future free acts as the basis for any argument whatsoever? God didn't change His foreknown intention in the case of Nineveh. He simply chose the appropriate foreknown response.

An a foreknow response is what if not an intention?

Incorrect. One does not have to certainly foreknow in order to intend. This is your word game.

Really? If I intend to go to work, Isn't it reasonable that I foreknow that I have a job, a way to work, the ability to work, etc..... The foreknown causes which enable me to go to work exist or I'm unable to do anything whatsoever.

If I intend A produces B; and, in reality A produces C then reason falls apart where complete present and past knowledge exists. Complete knowledge prevents any external force from changing the foreknown fact that A produces B.

If foreknown A then foreknown B. Not, if maybe A then maybe B.

But thank you for demonstrating your lack of intelligence again.

Don't you get tired of exploring the same old arguments in the same old ways? I do. Let's reason together and consider a new idea.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[RobE]

This last statement is unsupportable. In fact, Judas was a thief, as is evidenced in Scripture, which demonstrates his own lack of character. The desire of Judas for Jesus to become the King of Israel no doubt appealed to him, as one of the 12.

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.)​

The impact of this is two fold. First, Judas has not decided to betray at this point. Second, the scripture says "He meant Judas,...". Which is it? The open view must declare that Judas was not the intended object of Christ's words since Judas hadn't excercised His free will in the matter yet. This means the scripture is in error.

Actually, it is. Jesus isn't claiming a specific course of the future, but that all possible courses of the future lead to this. Thus, OVT is fine.

If your thinking is true, then open theism must declare that God foreknew all possible courses of the future and that definite exhaustive foreknowledge of free will events is possible; and, therefore, true.

LOL... Name for me a single OVTheist who says that animals have free will! (What a maroon...)

I wasn't speaking of the livestock.

This entire crowd realized the significance of what Jesus was doing and responded appropriately.

You conveniently omitted the part about the prophecy which foretold of the event before the birth of Christ. You see, open theism must defend itself by saying that God coerced the crowd into fulfillment of the prophecy. A crowd full of free will agents. Do you believe Jews would 'respond appropriately' in a false manner? Wouldn't it be blasphemy to 'respond appropriately' if they didn't believe(through free acts) that Jesus was the Christ?

Yes, foreknowledge of the event through prophecy is destructive to open theism unless God, through His raw power, subjegated the free will agents who attended.

No, it's an expression that this time will come soon. It's not a specific time.

Without foreknowledge 'soon' would be unknown. A specific time must be set or we could say that God foreknew the acts of free will agents. If God simply saw that the time was ripe and that those free will agents were in the future going to kill Jesus. Oh wait, that would require foreknowledge of future free acts. Impossible according to open theism. Sorry.

Yes... someone was chosen because of their character, and that at some undefined point, they would do this. Again, OVT doesn't mean that prophecy isn't possible.

Well, if you look at the entire prayer:

John 17:1 After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Jesus Prays for His Disciples
6"I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While 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.​

You see, Judas couldn't be chosen for his character because that would require foreknowledge of action of a free will agent. Open theism declares this impossible. Peter had personality flaws and could have freely chosen to betray Christ. The definite foreknowledge of events is presented by Christ here:

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

Again, not a problem. Judas was chosen because he was the kind of person who would do this. We are let on to his character elsewhere.

For this to be true it would require foreknowledge of free action.

Matthew 26: 20 When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. 21And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

22They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"

23Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. 24The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

25Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"
Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."

Is it your opinion that Judas asked, "Surely not I, Rabbi?" as a deceit, knowing full well that very night he would betray Christ? Or was Judas really inquiring whether it was true?​

Judas was trying to fit in, not wanting to be lynched.

Well, this might be true, but what of open theism's assertion that Judas was still free to NOT betray Christ. If He wasn't free then he isn't responsible for his act. The scripture says differently. Jesus states, 'Yes, it is you.' before Judas' free act. Are you saying that Judas didn't act freely and that's why Christ foreknew that action?