ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[themuzicman]

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.



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!



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?



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.



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

Let's begin by you agreeing to a particular dictionary to use. Honestly, you're on ignore because of your slimey, slithery, inane semantics, and this is nothing more than that.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Again, slithery, slimy, inane semantics.

When we speak of foreknowledge, we're speaking of the definite knowledge of a specific event occurring at a specific time. Nothing the gospels says that Judas' actions had to happen at a specific place and time. One only needs to look at Judas' motives as revealed in the gospels to understand that he was after money and power (he stole from the treasury on a regular basis, and all the apostles wondered when Jesus would kick out the Romans an become king), and was amoral about it.

Thus, we (and God) have an insight into Judas' mindset, and the fact that Judas is going to force Jesus' hand at some point in the future. Not because God forces his will, but because Judas will pursue his own goals in this way.

And if you read carefully, Jesus gives Judas the final push "out the door" (if you will) when he tells him that what he is going to do, to do quickly. Jesus has been planting this moment for time time, saying that one will betray him, and telling Judas that he is that person. I'm sure there were moments not recorded that also prepared him for the proper time.

Thus, Judas has his goals, which he thinks he will accomplish in a given way, and Jesus is telling him that he should go do it quickly, how hard is it to see that Judas is going to do exactly what he is supposed to do, and do it freely?

All you give us is fear, uncertainty and doubt, and then make this "Scriptures aren't inerrant" claim, which is a crock.

So, when you're ready to give up your simplistic and wrong headed view of OVT and what you claim the gospels must say, we can move on to "new ideas", but your ideas are nothing more than the same old misdirection, sematic games, and forcing your own presuppositions that have plagued you for this entire thread.

To be honest, I'm done with you.

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

When we speak of foreknowledge, we're speaking of the definite knowledge of a specific event occurring at a specific time. Nothing the gospels says that Judas' actions had to happen at a specific place and time. One only needs to look at Judas' motives as revealed in the gospels to understand that he was after money and power (he stole from the treasury on a regular basis, and all the apostles wondered when Jesus would kick out the Romans an become king), and was amoral about it.

Yet the point remains (which the Open Theists refuse to discuss?) that Judas could have chosen differently, according to the Open View, so any description of his tendencies and what he would probably do is beside the point.

Thus, we (and God) have an insight into Judas' mindset, and the fact that Judas is going to force Jesus' hand at some point in the future.

Definite knowledge of a future free choice, then. We can't have it both ways.

... how hard is it to see that Judas is going to do exactly what he is supposed to do, and do it freely?

Because people don't always do what you think they will do? Ahab humbled himself, after all his career as a Baal devotee and a craven and petulant man...

... your ideas are nothing more than the same old misdirection, sematic games, and forcing your own presuppositions that have plagued you for this entire thread.

Alas. But I wouldn't apply this to Rob, and his view...

 

[lee_merrill]

I may need to continue my eulogy, time to close the window on the Open View? When the response has become, "that's stupid, you're stupid and insincere and you don't understand." Lack of arguments might mean--well--lack of arguments.

 

[themuzicman]

Yet the point remains (which the Open Theists refuse to discuss?) that Judas could have chosen differently, according to the Open View, so any description of his tendencies and what he would probably do is beside the point.

Actually, it's not. Judas has already made the choice to pursue this goal. In fact, Scripture depicts him making choices in this respect along the way, from stealing from the treasury to going to the high priests and setting everything up. JUDAS has chosen his path long before the moment arrives that he does what he has planned to do.

Normally I'd describe the difference between theoretical possibility and reality, but I'm sure you're not interested.

Definite knowledge of a future free choice, then. We can't have it both ways.

Again, incorrect. When will you drop your presuppositions?

Again, word games.

THank you for self-identifying.

Because people don't always do what you think they will do? Ahab humbled himself, after all his career as a Baal devotee and a craven and petulant man...

Whose making God into a man, now?

Alas. But I wouldn't apply this to Rob, and his view...

Why not?

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

I may need to continue my eulogy, time to close the window on the Open View? When the response has become, "that's stupid, you're stupid and insincere and you don't understand." Lack of arguments might mean--well--lack of arguments.

LOL... as opposed to the inability to ditch unsupported presuppositions and continuing to hold to exegetical invalid readings of Scripture?

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Actually, it's not. Judas has already made the choice to pursue this goal. In fact, Scripture depicts him making choices in this respect along the way ...

Right, but "Jesus knew from the beginning ... who would betray him."

Whose making God into a man, now?

But I believe God knew Ahab would humble himself--but this reply is a non sequitur. The point is that people do act in complete contrast to their tendencies and their character at times.

Why not?

Because Rob's posts are carefully considered, and have solid reasoning presented. No "well that's just stupid" sorts of replies, those sorts of replies I find fit the description you gave, as would insults to peoples' intelligence, as if your argument consisted of saying "if you were smarter, you would be able to see my point and agree with me."

This however is not an argument, nor a discussion.

 

[themuzicman]

Right, but "Jesus knew from the beginning ... who would betray him."

Yeah, so? That doesn't make your point at all.. Did Judas have a history before Jesus chose him?

But I believe God knew Ahab would humble himself--but this reply is a non sequitur. The point is that people do act in complete contrast to their tendencies and their character at times.[/'quote]

At certain times, yes.

Because Rob's posts are carefully considered, and have solid reasoning presented. No "well that's just stupid" sorts of replies, those sorts of replies I find fit the description you gave, as would insults to peoples' intelligence, as if your argument consisted of saying "if you were smarter, you would be able to see my point and agree with me."

This however is not an argument, nor a discussion.

LOL... Rob's posts are without serious thought and often include equivocations, logical errors, exegetical problems, his own presuppositions, and other semantic games with the only possible goal of discrediting OVT in an invalid manner.

Muz

 

[godrulz]

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).


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.

God settles and knows some things in advance that He settles and brings to pass by His ability. It cannot be extrapolated that He settles and knows all things, such as what I will eat or wear today, even before I was born. These are areas of genuine freedom that are not foreknown, micromanaged, caused, coerced, decred, by God.

 

[godrulz]

I may need to continue my eulogy, time to close the window on the Open View? When the response has become, "that's stupid, you're stupid and insincere and you don't understand." Lack of arguments might mean--well--lack of arguments.

Anyone can list and quote verses out of context and with a wrong interpretation. I simply do not have time to respond to each interpretation with another interpretation (though I probably already have on other threads...I gave a detailed list of verses that show Judas was a believer who fell away and was not predestined to betray before he was born). Muz is responding point by point, so it can be done. Rob is not infallible.

 

[godrulz]

Right, but "Jesus knew from the beginning ... who would betray him."


But I believe God knew Ahab would humble himself--but this reply is a non sequitur. The point is that people do act in complete contrast to their tendencies and their character at times.


Because Rob's posts are carefully considered, and have solid reasoning presented. No "well that's just stupid" sorts of replies, those sorts of replies I find fit the description you gave, as would insults to peoples' intelligence, as if your argument consisted of saying "if you were smarter, you would be able to see my point and agree with me."

This however is not an argument, nor a discussion.

When Judas' heart changed, Jesus knew about it. Baby Judas and baby Hitler were not born evil with a fixed destiny. They became that way by rejecting truth and God, opening themselves up to Satan. When their heart changed, God knew about it, not before they even had a heart or mind or will!

From the beginning is not from Genesis or eternity past (Jesus was not even a man yet). It refers to early on in His ministry when Judas was already going off track. It says he BECAME a betrayer, not that he always was one, even in kindergarten.

Fulfilled can honestly be understood as illustrated. It also could have been fulfilled by someone else if Judas would have stayed on track. The cross could also have happened without a single betrayer. We would then not have the OT verses quoted in the gospels in reference to anyone. Reading the OT verse does not point to Judas in the same way specific Messianic prophecies point to Jesus.

 

[RobE]

Again, slithery, slimy, inane semantics.

Well, my semantics aren't the problem here. Christ's are....

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.​

Jesus is speaking of a prophecy which was given before Judas was born. A prophecy which must be fulfilled through an individual's free will and not through God's coercion.

It's this statement by Christ which obliterates open theism. It's this statement which you refuse to answer.

One only needs to look at Judas' motives as revealed in the gospels to understand that he was after money and power (he stole from the treasury on a regular basis, and all the apostles wondered when Jesus would kick out the Romans an become king), and was amoral about it.

When the prophecy was given, Judas had no motives. This is only true if God foreknew Judas and his motives when the prophecy was given. Knowledge of Judas and his motives might exist whether Judas existed or not at that time.

Thus, we (and God) have an insight into Judas' mindset, and the fact that Judas is going to force Jesus' hand at some point in the future. Not because God forces his will, but because Judas will pursue his own goals in this way.

This is only true if God foreknew Judas and his motives before the prophecy. You would also have to admit that this presents a case for the free will to have causes preceeding it. What would the LFWs have to say to this. Remember, the will is only free if it's uncaused and unknowable. If Judas pursues 'his own goals in this way'; then one of these must be true....

1. God must have foreseen his future free will acts.
2. His free will acts are effects of causes and God must have calculated them.

Otherwise;

3. God must have coerced his evil acts.

Do you have an alternative? It seems you are saying #2, but I know you are not.

Let's say that the prophecy wasn't against Judas specifically. What poor, unsuspecting, free will, agent would God coerce into doing the dirty work(o.v.)? Or what method would that agents free will acts be known with a certainty?

And if you read carefully, Jesus gives Judas the final push "out the door" (if you will) when he tells him that what he is going to do, to do quickly. Jesus has been planting this moment for time time, saying that one will betray him, and telling Judas that he is that person. I'm sure there were moments not recorded that also prepared him for the proper time.

Does this mean your official position is that God coerced Judas into a sinful act?

Thus, Judas has his goals, which he thinks he will accomplish in a given way, and Jesus is telling him that he should go do it quickly, how hard is it to see that Judas is going to do exactly what he is supposed to do, and do it freely?

We might ask how God knew Judas' goals when the prophecy, which Jesus mentions, was made.

All you give us is fear, uncertainty and doubt, and then make this "Scriptures aren't inerrant" claim, which is a crock.

Are you saying that Scriptures are errant or that the argument is a crock? I said that Jesus knew that Judas was the betrayer before Judas knew it himself. Before Judas made the decision to betray, Christ foreknew it. Foreknowledge of a free act is impossible according to open theism. If impossible, then is the scripture which demonstrates(blatantly states) it wrong?

 

[RobE]

When Judas' heart changed, Jesus knew about it. Baby Judas and baby Hitler were not born evil with a fixed destiny. They became that way by rejecting truth and God, opening themselves up to Satan. When their heart changed, God knew about it, not before they even had a heart or mind or will!

Agreed.

From the beginning is not from Genesis or eternity past (Jesus was not even a man yet). It refers to early on in His ministry when Judas was already going off track. It says he BECAME a betrayer, not that he always was one, even in kindergarten.

Just as Adam became a sinner and Christ became our Savior. No one's claiming differently.

Fulfilled can honestly be understood as illustrated. It also could have been fulfilled by someone else if Judas would have stayed on track.

Second hand foreknowledge of any free will agents acts are strictly prohibited by open theism as an absurdity. It didn't have to be foreknowledge of Judas' actions. It could be foreknowledge of Mike's, Peter's, or John's action. It doesn't eliminate the problem.

Foreknowledge becomes a basis for open theism's assertions when you assert that God intended to bring it about through His own actions. Unless the agent was coerced, of course.

The cross could also have happened without a single betrayer.

How would this occur since Christ was innocent and without blame?

 

[Philetus]

I may need to continue my eulogy, time to close the window on the Open View? When the response has become, "that's stupid, you're stupid and insincere and you don't understand." Lack of arguments might mean--well--lack of arguments.

That's a great point Lee. Now if we can just convince RobE he too is wasting his time (and ours) you can both get on with your lives. Why don't you just give the benediction and leave. I doubt you will get any arguments here.

After reading RobE's rants on Judas for about two years ... I think I'm just going with a wooden literal reading of scripture on that one ... Judas was a devil, not a believer ... just a poser and Jesus knew it from the beginning ... nothing foreknown ...

... just a loud rooster in a tight spot ... a devil face to face with the Son of God.

Seems only eleven of the twelve were teachable.

Philetus

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

God settles and knows some things in advance that He settles and brings to pass by His ability.

I think an argument can be made that in a world of libertarian free will agents that if God knows any single thing in advance He must necessarily know all things in advance. You just can't have it both ways as Boyd and you would like:

Nevertheless, I can appreciate your confusion, especially when reading Boyd (God of the Possible):

“In any event, the distinctive aspect of my approach is that I regard both motifs [future determinism and future openness] to be equally descriptive of the way God and the future actually are. On this basis, I arrive at the conclusion that the future is to some degree settled and known by God as such, and to some degree open and known by God as such. To some extent, God knows the future as definitely this way and definitely not that way. Some extent, however, he knows it as possibly this way and possibly not that way.

This is the “open view of God” or, as I prefer, the “open view of the future.” It does not hold that the future is wide open. Much of it, open theists concede, is settled ahead of time, either by God’s predestining will or by existing earthly causes, but it is not exhaustively settled ahead of time. To whatever degree the future is yet open to be decided, it is unsettled. To this extent, God knows it as a realm of possibilities, not certainties.”
​

Talk about wanting to have it both ways. Gheez!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I think an argument can be made that in a world of libertarian free will agents that if God knows any single thing in advance He must necessarily know all things in advance.

AMR, I don't get this reasoning.

If I know in advance that I will being going to Wal-Mart at 3PM tomorrow (or if I know my wife is going to Wal-Mart at 3PM tomorrow) there is no reason that I would then need to know the meticulous detail about every other event between now and then.

Can you please tell me why knowing certain events, necessitates knowing ALL events? :idunno:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR, I don't get this reasoning.

If I know in advance that I will being going to Wal-Mart at 3PM tomorrow (or if I know my wife is going to Wal-Mart at 3PM tomorrow) there is no reason that I would then need to know the meticulous detail about every other event between now and then.

Can you please tell me why knowing certain events, necessitates knowing ALL events? :idunno:

I think the difference is that when God knows something it is a certainty and has therefore necessarily incorporated all the contingencies that would have made such knowledge certain. I admit that I have not quite fleshed this out, but I think there is cheese down the tunnel that I intend to pursue: In a libertarian world, can any single thing be known by God as certain without God knowing all things? Associated with this is the argument that any intentions on the part of God must also presume foreknowledge. To have intentions is to imply knowledge of sorts. Again, something I have not got my mind around yet, but I think there is something here that deserves some research.

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee: ... but "Jesus knew from the beginning ... who would betray him."

Muz: That doesn't make your point at all.. Did Judas have a history before Jesus chose him?

But your case rests on Judas having made the decision to betray him, which he cannot then reverse (why not?). This would not seem to be a decision he would have made "from the beginning". I have however had people tell me this means the beginning of this incident, or some such, but that is clearly not the sense here.

Also, Rob's point needs to be answered, that it was known and written in Scripture that there would be a betrayer, what if all took another choice? so the Open View is impossible.

Rob's posts are without serious thought and often include equivocations, logical errors, exegetical problems...

This is the sort of retort that make me think that you are out of ammunition. Also I believe you committed to respectful discourse when you signed the agreement of conduct here [ETA - I checked the forum rules and no such requirement is stated, so I retract this statement], Christians, of course, should commit to this in general, "give an answer with gentleness and respect" (Peter).

This you are not doing.

 

[lee_merrill]

God settles and knows some things in advance that He settles and brings to pass by His ability. It cannot be extrapolated that He settles and knows all things, such as what I will eat or wear today, even before I was born.

But he knows "only a remnant will be saved," and this involves the most essential of human choices, how can the Open View say God ensures most will not repent here? do some people then have no choice to speak of after a certain number have been saved?

It refers to early on in His ministry when Judas was already going off track.

There appears to be no obvious beginning here, then. But really, this must mean from the beginning of his choice of Judas, for he also knew from the beginning who did not believe, this must refer to some event in view here, not a vague early-on point, and "have I not chosen you, the twelve? yet one of you is a devil" makes it very clear he knew when he chose them, what Judas would do, and this points out the beginning that is meant.

"He knew from the beginning who would betray him, and who would believe in him; he knew what would befall the rejecters of him, and when that would come to pass; as he must know also the day of the last judgment, since it is appointed by God, and he is ordained to execute it." (Adam Clarke)

It says he BECAME a betrayer...

He made a decision, yes, but this was long after the incident where it is said "Jesus knew from the beginning who would betray him."

It also could have been fulfilled by someone else if Judas would have stayed on track.

"The son of perdition" however may indicate a destiny at birth.

Regards,
Lee

 

[Lon]

Again, slithery, slimy, inane semantics.

When we speak of foreknowledge, we're speaking of the definite knowledge of a specific event occurring at a specific time. Nothing the gospels says that Judas' actions had to happen at a specific place and time. One only needs to look at Judas' motives as revealed in the gospels to understand that he was after money and power (he stole from the treasury on a regular basis, and all the apostles wondered when Jesus would kick out the Romans an become king), and was amoral about it.

Thus, we (and God) have an insight into Judas' mindset, and the fact that Judas is going to force Jesus' hand at some point in the future. Not because God forces his will, but because Judas will pursue his own goals in this way.

And if you read carefully, Jesus gives Judas the final push "out the door" (if you will) when he tells him that what he is going to do, to do quickly. Jesus has been planting this moment for time time, saying that one will betray him, and telling Judas that he is that person. I'm sure there were moments not recorded that also prepared him for the proper time.

Thus, Judas has his goals, which he thinks he will accomplish in a given way, and Jesus is telling him that he should go do it quickly, how hard is it to see that Judas is going to do exactly what he is supposed to do, and do it freely?

All you give us is fear, uncertainty and doubt, and then make this "Scriptures aren't inerrant" claim, which is a crock.

So, when you're ready to give up your simplistic and wrong headed view of OVT and what you claim the gospels must say, we can move on to "new ideas", but your ideas are nothing more than the same old misdirection, sematic games, and forcing your own presuppositions that have plagued you for this entire thread.

To be honest, I'm done with you.

Muz

Well how about where Jesus' bones were not broken? How is that not what we are talking about? That Roman could have done it just to make sure and it was par for the course to do so. Either God controlled that Roman and any others with the idea of following protocol, or God knew it wasn't going to happen. Even in the OV world predictability can be an almost exact science with God. Why not just hang up your trouble with EDF? It is almost blatantly clear God knows us so intimately. Even with GR's explanation of known contingency He's so nearly omniscient that your only hang up seems to be that you think the Greeks influence it, but come on. If you take your own reasoning and postulations it is almost there. Is it just that you are unwilling to make a stand? What is the real problem here? Even Patman's software re-analogy leads to a very convincing stance on definitions that are almost exhaustive. Is it the 'almost?'