ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

Do you still think we are anywhere close to agreeing on the subject of foreknowledge?

We're in complete agreement.

Rob,

Respond to the following single point...

I know (one might say that I foreknow) that I will go to work in the morning.

From my use of the term "know" it is not necessary that I will go to work in the morning.

Nor from my use of the term "know" is it necessary that you go to work in the morning.

In fact, you seem so incapable of following me on this that I feel obligated to clarify one major point.

I'm following you completely.

Jesus did not foreknow that Judas would betray Him. I mean, of course, that He did foreknow that he would but just not in the sense that you seem bent on using the term "foreknow". Jesus foreknew what Judas would do because he knew Judas' heart and because He, being God, was most likely manipulating His enemy in order to fulfill the Scripture (i.e. Jesus was not merely speculating). But that does not mean that Judas' actions were a logically necessary. Judas could have repented and surprised the daylights out of Jesus! Thus Jesus did not foreknow his actions in the sense you are using the term. There are many things that God does foreknow in that sense but Judas' actions were not among them.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete. You seem bent on feeling that one of our ideas of the term 'foreknow' is different than 'to know beforehand'. We agree that God did not 'speculate' and that God did 'foreknow' of Judas' impending doom. We both agree it was not logically 'necessary' for Judas' to remain unrepentent.

Simply stated we're agreeing what the term 'foreknow' means. Our disagreement is over the ability of the one who is doing the 'foreknowing'.

1. I know (one might say that I foreknow) that I will go to work in the morning.
2. God knows (one might say that He foreknows) that I will go to work in the morning

A. I might have a heart attack in my sleep.

I couldn't know this, God could.

B. The rapture might accure at 2:00 in the morning.

I couldn't know this, God could.

So much so, in fact, that it is quite accurate and most practical to say simply that I know that I will go to work tomorrow.

However, we must remember that if you DON'T go to work tommorrow then it could be said that it was not in fact 'known' despite your declaration, "I know (one might say that I foreknow) that I will go to work in the morning.".

One last comment:

Jesus foreknew what Judas would do because he knew Judas' heart and because He, being God, was most likely manipulating His enemy in order to fulfill the Scripture (i.e. Jesus was not merely speculating). But that does not mean that Judas' actions were a logically necessary.

If the underlined portion of your statement above means that God was manipulating Judas towards sin and destruction I vehemently disagree. If this is true then you have arrived at the same conclusion that Muz, Calvin, Nang, AMR, and the rest have arrived at.

My position remains that God's knowledge of Judas' fate was complete and that Judas' actions were entirely outside of God's will for him.

 

[RobE]

I think the real question is this: At what point were all the possible futures for Judas to include betrayal? Clearly Judas' own decisions brought him to that point, and I think they brought him to that point fairly early on in his discipleship, if not before. It was still his decision to make, and he made it. The execution of what Judas decided just wasn't seen until Jesus told him to go and do it quickly.

The real question isn't if Judas would sin. The real question is that why did Christ foreknow Judas wouldn't repent after the betrayal!

Do you maintain that God witheld grace from Judas Iscariot?

:thumb:

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.)​

He MEANT Judas … John was obviously writing with hindsight.

He also MEANT Jesus who was speaking with foresight!

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.​

Up until the point that Jesus released Judas to finish the nasty work of betrayal he had been protected from the evil one by Jesus. No longer protected … he was lost to his own destruction and carried out what he had already been laying the plans to do.

Are you trying to say 'the Devil made him do it?

Judas even tried to 'repent' by giving the money back and stopping the consequences of his actions ... to late for him.

Judas was 'trying' to repent and not repenting here. Would giving the money back have been repentence?

 

[RobE]

:rotfl: This one almost made me spit my beer on the screen!

This might explain your posts and you ignoring valid responses to them.

 

[themuzicman]

The real question isn't if Judas would sin. The real question is that why did Christ foreknow Judas wouldn't repent after the betrayal!

Do you maintain that God witheld grace from Judas Iscariot?

You use "withheld" as though Judas deserved a chance.

God "withheld" grace from Judas in the same way that God "withholds" grace from those who are born, live, and die never hearing the gospel, and in the same way that the majority of Jews living in Jerusalem at the time failed to recognize Jesus as the Christ:

John 12: 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them."​

Perhaps the better way to put it is that Judas was blinded from seeing what Jesus was.

He also MEANT Jesus who was speaking with foresight!

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.​

Hello? I've already pointed out that Jesus speaks this after Judas goes to betray him. It's not foresight, if you say it after it happens...

Muz

 

[RobE]

You use "withheld" as though Judas deserved a chance.

God "withheld" grace from Judas in the same way that God "withholds" grace from those who are born, live, and die never hearing the gospel, and in the same way that the majority of Jews living in Jerusalem at the time failed to recognize Jesus as the Christ:

John 12: 39 For this reason they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart, and be converted and I heal them."​

Perhaps the better way to put it is that Judas was blinded from seeing what Jesus was.

No. Blinded or witheld, being the same, is unacceptable to my point of view. I must say that God allowed Judas' heart to be hardened according to Judas' own desire. Jesus Christ afforded Judas every opportunity to believe. Day in and day out Judas' was there with our Lord, listening to His words, and rejecting the truth. It didn't mean the truth wasn't offered, only that Judas(being fully capable to do so) rejected it!

John 12:39 "........, and be converted and I heal them."​

God's desire here is for conversion. Does God work against His own purposes in your view?

Again, God's desire is for ALL men to be saved. God 'hardening' some towards reprobation, God 'blinding' some for His own purposes resulting in reprobation, or any sort of manipulation of a free agent towards God fulfilling His decrees(purposes) resulting in reprobation; all end in determinism and are, in essence, positive reprobation. The scriptures abound with examples of where we might perceive determinism. God hardened Pharoah's heart, but who's to say that Pharoah became reprobate because of this 'hardening'. Judas is another story altogether. For your claim to be true --- God blinded Judas causing his damnation.

This is untrue unless Calvin was right. Make a decision and take a stand! The scriptures are full of examples of determination, but they're full of God calling for repentence as well. Did God indeed make 'vessels of wrath' or were those 'vessels of wrath' simply used by Him for a greater purpose?

He also MEANT Jesus who was speaking with foresight!

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.​

Hello? I've already pointed out that Jesus speaks this after Judas goes to betray him. It's not foresight, if you say it after it happens...

Muz

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.)​

I was speaking of this which occured before Judas' decided conspire with the chief priests.

 

[themuzicman]

No. Blinded or witheld, being the same, is unacceptable to my point of view.

Then you don't have a biblical point of view. The BIBLE CLEARLY STATES THAT ISRAEL WAS BLINDED. If you want to disagree with that, then you can speak to God.

I must say that God allowed Judas' heart to be hardened according to Judas' own desire. Jesus Christ afforded Judas every opportunity to believe. Day in and day out Judas' was there with our Lord, listening to His words, and rejecting the truth. It didn't mean the truth wasn't offered, only that Judas(being fully capable to do so) rejected it!

John 12:39 "........, and be converted and I heal them."​

God's desire here is for conversion.

I now remember why I have you on ignore. You're obtuse.

Did you even bother to read the whole verse?

I am typing this slowly because I know you don't learn very well.

40 "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart.​

What is God's (He) intent, here? To blind them or to save them?

(I'll give you a hint: God BLINDED them.)

Does God work against His own purposes in your view?

No. This works FOR God's purpose, not against it. If Israel had turned, they wouldn't have crucified Christ, and there would be no propitiation! (DUH!)

Thus, Israel was blinded, they rejected their Messiah, crucified him so that all those who believe are justified, and their sins propitiated before God

Again, God's desire is for ALL men to be saved. God 'hardening' some towards reprobation, God 'blinding' some for His own purposes resulting in reprobation, or any sort of manipulation of a free agent towards God fulfilling His decrees(purposes) resulting in reprobation; all end in determinism and are, in essence, positive reprobation. The scriptures abound with examples of where we might perceive determinism. God hardened Pharoah's heart, but who's to say that Pharoah became reprobate because of this 'hardening'. Judas is another story altogether. For your claim to be true --- God blinded Judas causing his damnation.

LOL... Your presumption of determinism is laughable. We go back to the basics for Rob yet again:

FREE WILL is only the ability to choose from the options before you.
In order for any man to be able to come to Christ, God must draw him first (John 6:44,45).
Thus, if God doesn't draw then, then they don't have that option.
This is NOT a violation of free will, but a limiting of options.

Likewise, hearts are easily hardened and blinded without ever manipulating free will. Even people are capable of hardening the hearts of other people. And without violating free will!

So, you can give up the idea that somehow this is deterministic. It's not.

This is untrue unless Calvin was right. Make a decision and take a stand! The scriptures are full of examples of determination, but they're full of God calling for repentence as well. Did God indeed make 'vessels of wrath' or were those 'vessels of wrath' simply used by Him for a greater purpose?

You've been pwn3d every time you try to make this point, and yet you still make this claim. Back to ignore with you.

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.)​

I was speaking of this which occured before Judas' decided conspire with the chief priests.

But this doesn't speak of Judas being lost.

Muz

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

You've been pwn3d every time you try to make this point, and yet you still make this claim. Back to ignore with you.

You use this a lot when dealing with me & Rob. What does this mean?

 

[themuzicman]

You use this a lot when dealing with me & Rob. What does this mean?

It's hacker speak... The 'P' becomes an 'O', and the '3' and 'e', thus "owned", and refers to being exposed or clearly defeated.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Then you don't have a biblical point of view. The BIBLE CLEARLY STATES THAT ISRAEL WAS BLINDED. If you want to disagree with that, then you can speak to God.

I now remember why I have you on ignore. You're obtuse.

Did you even bother to read the whole verse?

I am typing this slowly because I know you don't learn very well.

40 "He has blinded their eyes and He hardened their heart, so that they would not see with their eyes and perceive with their heart.​

What is God's (He) intent, here? To blind them or to save them?

(I'll give you a hint: God BLINDED them.)

No. This works FOR God's purpose, not against it. If Israel had turned, they wouldn't have crucified Christ, and there would be no propitiation! (DUH!)

Thus, Israel was blinded, they rejected their Messiah, crucified him so that all those who believe are justified, and their sins propitiated before God

LOL... Your presumption of determinism is laughable. We go back to the basics for Rob yet again:

FREE WILL is only the ability to choose from the options before you.
In order for any man to be able to come to Christ, God must draw him first (John 6:44,45).
Thus, if God doesn't draw then, then they don't have that option.
This is NOT a violation of free will, but a limiting of options.

Likewise, hearts are easily hardened and blinded without ever manipulating free will. Even people are capable of hardening the hearts of other people. And without violating free will!

So, you can give up the idea that somehow this is deterministic. It's not.

You've been pwn3d every time you try to make this point, and yet you still make this claim. Back to ignore with you.

But this doesn't speak of Judas being lost.

Muz

Well Muz, you are a Calvinist. One who doesn't believe in foreknowledge. As I pointed out before, foreknowledge is not required for Calvinism. God decrees, it happens. Foreknowledge is completely superfluous to those beliefs.

Of the two valid options only the first applies to your ideas:

1) predetermination
2) foreknown free choices

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Again, God's desire is for ALL men to be saved. God 'hardening' some towards reprobation, God 'blinding' some for His own purposes resulting in reprobation, or any sort of manipulation of a free agent towards God fulfilling His decrees(purposes) resulting in reprobation; all end in determinism and are, in essence, positive reprobation.

Click the word "Will" in my sig below.

God decrees, it happens.

God's decree includes the certainty of the event happening necessarily, freely or contingently.

 

[RobE]

Click the word "Will" in my sig below.

Thanks for the link. I've read it before.

God's decree includes the certainty of the event happening necessarily, freely or contingently.

[/QUOTE]

Aah, but Muz is a SupraLapsarian since He believes in double predestination.

God blinding Judas makes it 'uncontingent' and 'unfree' which leaves us with only 'necessarily'.

I suggest that you begin discipling Muz as soon as possible. Times a wastin'!

 

[Yorzhik]

This might explain your posts and you ignoring valid responses to them.

Laughing at funny things explains my posts?... um... okay... I guess so

If I missed a response, I always treat reminders kindly because I'm not on TOL as much as I'd like, and sometimes a thread will stack up a lot of posts and I'll miss a response.

 

[Clete]

We're in complete agreement.

I don't believe you.

I'm sorry but I don't.

Nor from my use of the term "know" is it necessary that you go to work in the morning.

Then your argument about if God foreknows X then X will necessarily happen is false by your own admission.

You are clearly talking out of both sides of your mouth - either that or I'm having a stroke. :freak:

I'm following you completely.

Impossible.

Clete. You seem bent on feeling that one of our ideas of the term 'foreknow' is different than 'to know beforehand'. We agree that God did not 'speculate' and that God did 'foreknow' of Judas' impending doom. We both agree it was not logically 'necessary' for Judas' to remain unrepentant.

How do we both agree? You are the one who posted the following argument...

1. Necessarily if God foreknows Judas' actions, then Judas' actions will happen.

2. God foreknows Judas actions.

3. Therefore, Judas' actions will necessarily happen.​

Remember that, Rob?!

Oh! Would somebody please shoot me or drill my eye balls out with masonry bit or toss me into a chip grinder or something! :Grizzly: :Clete:

Simply stated we're agreeing what the term 'foreknow' means. Our disagreement is over the ability of the one who is doing the 'foreknowing'.

No it isn't Rob.

However, we must remember that if you DON'T go to work tomorrow then it could be said that it was not in fact 'known' despite your declaration, "I know (one might say that I foreknow) that I will go to work in the morning.".

You see! You aren't following me Rob! This possibility was the entire point of my post!

Look, let me try it again.

To foreknow something means to know in advance. We've got that much down. Perhaps where we are getting off track is in what it means to know something. To know something has a whole range of meaning and I suppose that for the purposes of this discussion you could pin it down really tightly to mean only the sort of knowledge where there is absolutely no possibility that things will turn out differently but if we did that then we would be straying from the normal usage of the term.

I know that tomorrow the high temperature here in Oklahoma City will be approximately 61 degrees. I know that, Rob! But that doesn't mean that I couldn't be wrong. OKC might be hit by a meteor tomorrow at noon or the weather man might simply have made a mistake in his forecast or any number of other factors that are unknowable to me. The more unknowable factors exist the less certain my knowledge is but that doesn't mean that I'm guessing or that I don't know at all what the temperature is going to be tomorrow, I do know, just not with absolute certainty.

In the case of Judas' betrayal, which Christ's crusifixion was not dependent upon, by the way, Jesus had this same sort of foreknowledge. He knew what Judas was going to do but it could have turned out differently than it did because there was at least one unknowable factor involved, that factor being Judas' will, his ability to choose, which he could have exercised at any time.

Now there are other things which God does foreknow with absolute unequivocal certainty but the free actions of men are not among them.

Get it?

Please say you get it!

One last comment:


If the underlined portion of your statement above means that God was manipulating Judas towards sin and destruction I vehemently disagree. If this is true then you have arrived at the same conclusion that Muz, Calvin, Nang, AMR, and the rest have arrived at.

I have not arrived at the same conclusion that Calvin, Nang and AMR have arrived at (I don't know enough about Muz's position to say)!
God manipulates His enemies Rob! Not to the point that they are unable to repent but He manipulates them nonetheless. He manipulated Pharaoh by performing miracles, He manipulated the Pharisees the same way and it seems clear to me that in order to fulfill (i.e. parallel) the Scripture through Judas, God manipulated him into willfully doing just that. I think that the 30 pieces of silver was God's idea, not Judas' or the Pharisee's, I think the timing was orchestrated by God, etc. Even so, Judas could have repented and ended that entire segment of the story on a good note and instead of the villain he is today, he would be a Biblical hero instead and Jesus would still have been crucified and the Bible would still be perfectly intact only instead of using this proof text, you'd be using another.

My position remains that God's knowledge of Judas' fate was complete and that Judas' actions were entirely outside of God's will for him.

And on top of that you maintain that God is still somehow just and righteous and refuse to see the inherent contradiction. What else is new?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Click the word "Will" in my sig below.

God's decree includes the certainty of the event happening necessarily, freely or contingently.

Utterly irrational nonsense!

And AMR knows it!

 

[Lon]

I don't believe you.

I'm sorry but I don't.


Then your argument about if God foreknows X then X will necessarily happen is false by your own admission.

You are clearly talking out of both sides of your mouth - either that or I'm having a stroke. :freak:


Impossible.


How do we both agree? You are the one who posted the following argument...

1. Necessarily if God foreknows Judas' actions, then Judas' actions will happen.

2. God foreknows Judas actions.

3. Therefore, Judas' actions will necessarily happen.​

Remember that, Rob?!

Oh! Would somebody please shoot me or drill my eye balls out with masonry bit or toss me into a chip grinder or something! :Grizzly: :Clete:


No it isn't Rob.


You see! You aren't following me Rob! This possibility was the entire point of my post!

Look, let me try it again.

To foreknow something means to know in advance. We've got that much down. Perhaps where we are getting off track is in what it means to know something. To know something has a whole range of meaning and I suppose that for the purposes of this discussion you could pin it down really tightly to mean only the sort of knowledge where there is absolutely no possibility that things will turn out differently but if we did that then we would be straying from the normal usage of the term.

I know that tomorrow the high temperature here in Oklahoma City will be approximately 61 degrees. I know that, Rob! But that doesn't mean that I couldn't be wrong. OKC might be hit by a meteor tomorrow at noon or the weather man might simply have made a mistake in his forecast or any number of other factors that are unknowable to me. The more unknowable factors exist the less certain my knowledge is but that doesn't mean that I'm guessing or that I don't know at all what the temperature is going to be tomorrow, I do know, just not with absolute certainty.

In the case of Judas' betrayal, which Christ's crusifixion was not dependent upon, by the way, Jesus had this same sort of foreknowledge. He knew what Judas was going to do but it could have turned out differently than it did because there was at least one unknowable factor involved, that factor being Judas' will, his ability to choose, which he could have exercised at any time.

Now there are other things which God does foreknow with absolute unequivocal certainty but the free actions of men are not among them.

Get it?

Please say you get it!

This is said well, I don't agree with it, but it has plain meaning.

I have not arrived at the same conclusion that Calvin, Nang and AMR have arrived at (I don't know enough about Muz's position to say)!

Yep, that is the the point where the disagreement lies. Here for the rest of your comment is my purpose for posting a reply:

God manipulates His enemies Rob! Not to the point that they are unable to repent but He manipulates them nonetheless. He manipulated Pharaoh by performing miracles, He manipulated the Pharisees the same way and it seems clear to me that in order to fulfill (i.e. parallel) the Scripture through Judas, God manipulated him into willfully doing just that. I think that the 30 pieces of silver was God's idea, not Judas' or the Pharisee's, I think the timing was orchestrated by God, etc. Even so, Judas could have repented and ended that entire segment of the story on a good note and instead of the villain he is today, he would be a Biblical hero instead and Jesus would still have been crucified and the Bible would still be perfectly intact only instead of using this proof text, you'd be using another.


And on top of that you maintain that God is still somehow just and righteous and refuse to see the inherent contradiction. What else is new?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Question for understanding: How could God have enemies if He doesn't ultimately know their choices? You didn't say one way or the other (that I could readily see clearly) if Judas was an enemy but certainly Pharoah. Which ones does God know to manipulate? I'm trying to understand the missing parts not connected for me in viewing OV theology.

 

[Clete]

I don't understand your question Lon. Do you think that Judas just woke up the morning of the betrayal and suddenly decided to recant his faith in God or something?

The betrayal was surely a long time in coming. Jesus knew Judas' heart and knew that he was not a true follower of His. He knew that Judas was greedy and a liar. That makes Judas an enemy of God and a prime candidate for being manipulated by Him.

Does that not answer your question? God would know who His enemies are in escencially the same way you know who your enemies are only God's information is, of course, vastly more complete and entirely accurate whereas our available information concerning our enemies may not be.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Nang]

Utterly irrational nonsense!

And AMR knows it!

You are only attempting to provoke response.

That is a hideous form of trolling.

Nang

 

[Clete]

You are only attempting to provoke response.

That is a hideous form of trolling.

Nang

No I'm not Nang. I couldn't care less about getting a response from AMR.

Look, here's what you do...

Whatever you think is going on, assume that you are too stupid to be right and forget it.

 

[RobE]

Let's get a couple of points straight here:

First this is the argument about the incompatibility of foreknowledge and free will. It wasn't the argument I originally presented.....It was first presented here.

How do we both agree? You are the one who posted the following argument...

1. Necessarily if God foreknows Judas' actions, then Judas' actions will happen.

2. God foreknows Judas actions.

3. Therefore, Judas' actions will necessarily happen.
Remember that, Rob?!

I presented this when agreeing to your response of my original argument.

Note the agreement and my trying to explain why your response wasn't about 'speculation' at all.

You replied:
Jesus' words were not speculative in the slightest but they were not necessarily true either.
I know that you don't mean Jesus lied. You state outright that it wasn't speculative. So that only leaves me with one assumption which is that you believe #3 below is false:

1. Necessarily if God foreknows x, then x will happen.
2. God foreknows x.
3. Therefore, x will necessarily happen.​

That God foreknew of Judas' free actions while Judas' remained free to do otherwise. In other words, it was not necessary that Judas remain unrepentent even though God forknew He would remain unrepentent.

My original argument was posted here.

I don't believe you.

I'm sorry but I don't.

Then your argument about if God foreknows X then X will necessarily happen is false by your own admission.

You are clearly talking out of both sides of your mouth - either that or I'm having a stroke. :freak:

No. The first premise must remain true because....Source

The definition of foreknowledge is to know in advance.
Jesus' words were not speculative in the slightest but they were not necessarily true either. Jesus was not simply guessing, He knew Judas' heart but that doesn't mean that Judas could not have repented.

How do we both agree? You are the one who posted the following argument...

1. Necessarily if God foreknows Judas' actions, then Judas' actions will happen.

2. God foreknows Judas actions.

3. Therefore, Judas' actions will necessarily happen.​

Remember that, Rob?!

Oh! Would somebody please shoot me or drill my eye balls out with masonry bit or toss me into a chip grinder or something! :Grizzly: :Clete:

No it isn't Rob.

You see! You aren't following me Rob! This possibility was the entire point of my post!

Look, let me try it again.

To foreknow something means to know in advance. We've got that much down. Perhaps where we are getting off track is in what it means to know something. To know something has a whole range of meaning and I suppose that for the purposes of this discussion you could pin it down really tightly to mean only the sort of knowledge where there is absolutely no possibility that things will turn out differently but if we did that then we would be straying from the normal usage of the term.

Well we are trying to be specific here. To know in advance is the same as knowing in advance correctly for the purposes of this discussion. For if it doesn't occur then I didn't know it in advance, did I?

I know that tomorrow the high temperature here in Oklahoma City will be approximately 61 degrees. I know that, Rob! But that doesn't mean that I couldn't be wrong. OKC might be hit by a meteor tomorrow at noon or the weather man might simply have made a mistake in his forecast or any number of other factors that are unknowable to me. The more unknowable factors exist the less certain my knowledge is but that doesn't mean that I'm guessing or that I don't know at all what the temperature is going to be tomorrow, I do know, just not with absolute certainty.

Yet with complete knowledge of present conditions you would know in advance with a certainty, right?

In the case of Judas' betrayal, which Christ's crusifixion was not dependent upon, by the way, Jesus had this same sort of foreknowledge. He knew what Judas was going to do but it could have turned out differently than it did because there was at least one unknowable factor involved, that factor being Judas' will, his ability to choose, which he could have exercised at any time.

Yes, I understand you now - Jesus was speculating about what Judas would do. Lee was right all along.

Now there are other things which God does foreknow with absolute unequivocal certainty but the free actions of men are not among them.

Get it?

Please say you get it!

Unfortunately I do get it. Yes, I thought we were on the same page for a couple of posts. I believed you when you said Jesus was not speculating, but you've shown me my error. I'm more sorry than you know(with a certainty).

I have not arrived at the same conclusion that Calvin, Nang and AMR have arrived at (I don't know enough about Muz's position to say)!
God manipulates His enemies Rob!

This is true. I was just checking to make sure you hadn't become a determinist like Muz.

 

[RobE]

"Speculate: To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence." (American Heritage Dictionary)

So if you know what the outcome will likely be, you don't know what will in fact happen, since "likely" means an estimate.

Sorry Lee,

I guess I expected too much of Clete and assumed he was truthful when he said Jesus wasn't speculating. We'll have to start over from back here.

Speculating is to reason on inconclusive evidence. The scripture in question was not a speculation however as proven by the end results.

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.​

There are no words such as might, could, should, etc... This scripture is presenting 'certain' knowledge.

God was speculating. Clete would agree (did you read the part where Clete mentioned going to work in the morning). I'm not getting what the problem is with that.

Does anyone have a breakdown of the Greek for this verse?