ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

The Spirit's application of some OT verses does not fit hermeneutical, contextual rules all of the time. Because it is inspired, we understand and accept this illustrative use. The problem is if we traditionally always think NT applications of OT verses are predictive prophecy based on simple foreknowledge. This is simply not the case always.

 

[RobE]

It sounds like you are talking Arminian simple foreknowledge.

When Jesus chose Judas, he was not a devil or betrayer. Jesus considered him an apostle/disciple. Early in his ministy, Jesus would not have said these words.

He did say these words early in His ministry.

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.)

Before Judas had agreed to betray Christ.....

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.​

The o.v. asserts Judas was able to change his mind at any time and I agree. This being true means that Christ's stated prophecy fulfillment must have been foreknown.

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.​

He said them when Judas changed and it became a possible object of present knowledge to say these words truthfully. This is not foreknowledge, but present knowledge (which OT affirms, obviously).

Yet that present knowledge would have to yield exhaustive definite foreknowledge of Judas' future evil acts for the words to be true.

John Sanders develops the idea of Scripture illustrating/'fulfilling' a verse rather than it being a predictive prophecy based on simple foreknowledge of Judas. I am satisfied with his research and various examples.

It's a satisfactory explanation until we consider evil acts and God's inability to partake or participate with them. Then again we have Christ's words which are not 'illustrative' in nature.....

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. 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..​

The prayer signifies specific foreknown action. Christ says that He revealed the Father to those who were given Him. Those included Judas Iscariot. That Jesus kept them safe and protected them. That none were lost except the one which Christ was unable to save as revealed through prophetic scriptures.

Are we to believe that Christ didn't protect and keep safe all those entrusted to Him including His enemy, Judas Iscariot? That Judas acts were not free in nature?

Simple foreknowledge offers no providential advantage to God (gets nonsensical when you start thinking about it). Even though you do not see it, I am convinced that EDF of future free will contingencies is not possible (emphasis on exhaustive and definite).

Then your statement isn't valid. It must yield EDF to be true. Christ couldn't say it truthfully until Judas fetched the soldiers. He said it long before this. Open theism must assert that it was unknown until it happened.

He said them when Judas changed and it became a possible object of present knowledge to say these words truthfully. This is not foreknowledge, but present knowledge (which OT affirms, obviously).

Muz's explanation that God waited until the Roman's were in existence fails because there was no way of knowing the Roman empire, which was a product of free will agents, would ever come into existence. Since free acts are unknowable according to the open view there was also no way of knowing that the Roman soldier wouldn't break with protocol and break Christ's legs. There was also no way of knowing that a bone wouldn't be broken during Christ's beating before the cross. There was no way of knowing that a free will agent wouldn't fall down in front of the cross carrying Christ and trip Him resulting in a broken bone. I could go on, but what's the point. Without foreknowledge of events there is no guarantee whatsoever of prophecy fulfillment.

 

[RobE]

The Spirit's application of some OT verses does not fit hermeneutical, contextual rules all of the time. Because it is inspired, we understand and accept this illustrative use. The problem is if we traditionally always think NT applications of OT verses are predictive prophecy based on simple foreknowledge. This is simply not the case always.

Nor does it have to always be the case. It only needs to be the case in one instance of free will. At that point open theism is banished because it's conclusion that free will and EDF are incompatible disappears.

 

[godrulz]

Nor does it have to always be the case. It only needs to be the case in one instance of free will. At that point open theism is banished because it's conclusion that free will and EDF are incompatible disappears.

You are illustrating foreknowledge, which OT affirms. You are not proving EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge, which OT denies.

 

[themuzicman]

You are illustrating foreknowledge, which OT affirms. You are not proving EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge, which OT denies.

More accurately, he's demonstrating indefinite foreknowledge, or knowledge of all possible futures which isn't an issue for OVT at all.. Apparently foreknowledge doesn't refer to definite foreknowledge OR intentions, anymore.

Do you suppose Rob is OVT, now?

Muz

 

[lee_merrill]

Open theism claims that the foreknowledge of free will acts is impossible, but the scriptures foretell of them. I think this leaves us with only two available options.

1) God coerced free will agents to bring evil acts about so the prophecies would be fulfilled.

2) God foreknew the evil acts of free will agents when the prophecies were made.

I stand by option #2 because I am unable to find another adequate solution. Do you have another viable solution to the problem?

I've heard [the] claim that God found free will agents whose future acts would fulfill these prophecies, but you ignore the fact that God would have to know the future acts of those same free will agents for this to be true. Everywhere we look, only the two options above present themselves.

Excellently stated here.

To godrulz: I want to take a moment to praise your actions and behavior towards your Christian brothers on TOL. In the last 2 years I've only seen you lose your temper a couple of times. I appreciate the fact that you always post a response ... when you are addressed. I find no deception within your person, a loving kindness in your disposition...

I agree, thanks, Godrulz, I appreciate the sincerity, and your gracious demeanor.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Knowledge is the basis of all acts unless one is insane.

Are Divine Decrees based upon foreknown reason(intention) or does God simply decree chaotically with no purpose(no intention)?

I think you misunderstood. Unsettled theism holds that God has foreknowledge about some things, not all, therefore God's foreknowledge is not exhaustive.

I was adopting the opponent's position in my statement and wondering how it could possibly hold up. I was arguing that in a libertarian world for God know even one event exhaustively necessarily implies knowledge of all events exhaustively.

I also don't understand your first sentence above. I believe 'unless' should read 'less', no?

 

[RobE]

You are illustrating foreknowledge, which OT affirms. You are not proving EXHAUSTIVE foreknowledge, which OT denies.

Ah, but it is exhaustive and you must have missed it!

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.​

Judas is to be reprobate without a chance of repenting! Christ states this as and exhaustive definite outcome before Judas is dead.

Also, how can something be foreknown unless it's exhaustively known that nothing will interfere with its occurance?

 

[themuzicman]

REad John 6:44, no one can come to Christ except that God draw him. Whether Judas is able to repent or not is in God's control.


Sheesh...

Muz

 

[Lon]

Nice devotional. Really!
But, TOL isn’t about devotions. There are sites for that. TOL is about debate.

And, Lon, your inference that Open Theists do not stand in awe of God is getting old.

Open Theism isn’t about EDF. It is a about God not exhaustively determining the future. From our perspective it is AWSOME that God can determine to make what He wills happen and still preserve the freedom of individuals within that framework, without knowing exhaustively how they will respond, which they will decide or what they will do.

When I was a teen I read those verses as you do now. You are on the right track. Now, keep going. James is indeed telling us to NOT make our plans WITHOUT consideration of what God IS doing and without considering what God has said He will do in our future. It is a matter of recognizing and surrendering to the reign of Christ in the world even NOW while perusing the future that God intends and will eventually bring about. The issue is whether or not we (whosoever) will or will not enter that future. God’s future is being resisted and man is indeed trying to replace that future with his own imaginations. Such imaginings lead only to destruction because the future God plans will come about. It is the hope we have in us and that hope doesn’t disappoint. We have God’s Word, Spirit and faithfulness as a guarantee. We have Jesus to follow into God's future or we wander off into a future of our own making that doesn’t include God. Now that’s a hell of a future to look forward to, isn’t it.

Philetus

Er, it wasn't addressed to you so if you are 'getting tired of it' don't read it, that simple.

Devotional? Yep, to a degree HOWEVER, the major point was debate material. You can analyze all you like, what I'm saying is over-analyzing isn't my initial inclination or personality. Whatever I post is debate material. Deal with it or ignore it. That is your choice. I find your 'tired of it' bothersome and self-inflicted.

I did not infere that OV doesn't have awe. I infered rather that OV must embrace something very close to EDF by your other definitions. Awe for me is a proper place to be. Humble creation is a proper place to be. Finite looking at infinite is a proper place to be. I didn't tie it to OV, just revealing a personality trait of my own. It wasn't meant to elevate or anything, just give 'my' perspective/personality. It is easily seen, nothing new or revelatory.

Finally, "on the right track, keep going." Is that an OV rally cheer? "You are almost caught up with us?" I don't want to read to much into that but it has some kind of aroma to it and you can be blunt if need be, cause I don't read nuance as well as others. What is it you are really trying to say?

 

[lee_merrill]

Ah, but it is exhaustive ...

I think there's a miscommunication here, exhaustive as Godrulz is using this term I believe means "God knows all the future," exhaustive in that sense, and I believe you and AMR are using exhaustive in the sense that God knows all about one event.

Read John 6:44, no one can come to Christ except that God draw him. Whether Judas is able to repent or not is in God's control.

I definitely agree (you will make a fine Calvinist!) but the Open View must I think say that if any decision is a free one, and a possible one, salvation must be. If not then (to use a free will person argument I have heard) why does God condemn people for refusing to believe, when this was a decision they could not make?

Blessings,
Lee <- Looks up Romans 6 now, recalling a similar question there

 

[Lon]

I don't think the Romans or their practices existed at the time of the OT 'prophecy'. If not, it was not a possible object of certain knowledge for God. Was there a primary application for the Psalmist's historical understanding and then an application to Christ by way of illustration (Sanders understanding of some uses of 'fulfill')?

Why would there need to be a prophecy about His bones then? Why make a prophecy as trivial if it isn't foreknown? What on earth can the significance be if it isn't foreknowledge? What difference would breaking His bones or not have been?

It naturally, without coersion, leads to upholding His foreknowledge. All prophecy naturally leads to this conclusion. He is both all knowing and foreknowing. These scriptures lead futher to the implication that all man's future is known. He knows the number of days David will live Psa 139:16 . He knows the number of hairs on our head Mat 10:30 and it is expressed towards his omniscience. He knows Jesus will be betrayed with a kiss for silver Luk 22:37 Zec 11:12,13 . He knows Josiah's name 300 years before he is born 1Ki 13:2 . He knows Peter will deny Him and how many times. He knows a rooster will be close by and will crow an exact number of times. He knows a colt is waiting for him Mat 21:1-5.
He knows where Nathanial was sitting Joh 1:48 . All of which, and so much more that point very directly to God knowing the future acts of men.

 

[themuzicman]

It's definitely time to sound the eulogy for the opponents of OVT as they are looking more and more silly in their objections, even to the point of changing the meaning of words and playing semantic games.

OVT is it.

Muz

 

[RobE]

I think there's a miscommunication here, exhaustive as Godrulz is using this term I believe means "God knows all the future," exhaustive in that sense, and I believe you and AMR are using exhaustive in the sense that God knows all about one event.

Originally Posted by godrulz
The Spirit's application of some OT verses does not fit hermeneutical, contextual rules all of the time. Because it is inspired, we understand and accept this illustrative use. The problem is if we traditionally always think NT applications of OT verses are predictive prophecy based on simple foreknowledge. This is simply not the case always.

I decided to edit this and insert my original statement with a correction to eliminate the confusion:

Nor does it have to always be the case. It only needs to be the case in one instance of free will to invalidate the postion of open theism. At that point open theism is banished because it's conclusion that free will and EDF are incompatible disappears.​

It isn't necessary for me to prove that exhaustive foreknowledge exists. It's only necessary for me to prove that foreknowledge of one free act exists.

 

[RobE]

I think you misunderstood. Unsettled theism holds that God has foreknowledge about some things, not all, therefore God's foreknowledge is not exhaustive.

Not acts of free will.

I was adopting the opponent's position in my statement and wondering how it could possibly hold up. I was arguing that in a libertarian world for God know even one event exhaustively necessarily implies knowledge of all events exhaustively.

Causality. Or perhaps I miss your point.

I also don't understand your first sentence above. I believe 'unless' should read 'less', no?

Could be. I have a poor vocabulary and my use of the language is limited. I meant that everyone does things for reasons(knowledge of intent). Those reasons are causes. -----> Even according to Muz' and Godrulz' theory on how God could foreknow Judas' actions without foreknowing Judas' actions, free actions have causes. How else might Jesus know beforehand, what Judas' actions would be or even might be?

According to GoMu, God can foreknow a free will agent's actions, without actually foreknowing them. No. It doesn't sound right. How would you describe what they're saying? Maybe we could say that God doesn't foreknow Judas' actions even though He might foreknow them?

I think I understand now: Are they saying God foreknows Judas' actions without foreknowing them exhaustively?

To quote Cleke: How could it be said to be foreknown if something other than what is foreknown happens?:cheers:

Looks like we figured that one out.

 

[RobE]

REad John 6:44, no one can come to Christ except that God draw him. Whether Judas is able to repent or not is in God's control.


Sheesh...

Muz

Since when has open theism's position been that God elects the reprobate? Calvin would be proud. Now who's playing with words. Re-read the argument. Did God coerce Judas into sinning? If not, then how is it that Christ foreknew his acts before Judas knew himself?.

1)Are you saying that human decisions are effects of causes?

2)Are you saying that God elected Judas to reprobation?

3)Are you saying that God foreknew of Judas' decision? If so then what was the basis of this knowledge?

4)Are you saying that God foreknew nothing and Judas' decision was discovered after it was made despite Jesus' words to the contrary?

5)Is God able to coerce a free will agent to do evil?

 

[lee_merrill]

It isn't necessary for me to prove that exhaustive foreknowledge exists. It's only necessary for me to prove that foreknowledge of one free act exists.

Right-o.

It's definitely time to sound the eulogy for the opponents of OVT as they are looking more and more silly in their objections, even to the point of changing the meaning of words and playing semantic games.

Strangely enough, I find the point of real foreknowledge compelling and clear. Foreknowledge meaning knowing beforehand, and if this is knowledge of a free-will choice, then the Open View is refuted.

 

[lee_merrill]

Are you saying that God elected Judas to reprobation?

Yes he is, I believe. Ironically enough, in order to maintain the Open View, Muz is descending (or ascending, depending on your view) into Calvinism, into hyper-Calvinism--no less.

The Open View is apparently more open than I thought?

 

[Philetus]

I don't think the Romans or their practices existed at the time of the OT 'prophecy'. If not, it was not a possible object of certain knowledge for God. Was there a primary application for the Psalmist's historical understanding and then an application to Christ by way of illustration (Sanders understanding of some uses of 'fulfill')?

I think you and Muz both hit upon the key ... all scripture was written after the fact. Why else would you need to place prophecy in quotes and why else are we nitpicking the details to death. Hind site is 20/20. The writers of scripture were inspired by the Spirit to see the present as part of a long, very long, consistent narrative and to project that consistency on to the future. When you start with doctrine you tend to lose the story line and distort the message.

Philetus

 

[godrulz]

I think you misunderstood. Unsettled theism holds that God has foreknowledge about some things, not all, therefore God's foreknowledge is not exhaustive.

I was adopting the opponent's position in my statement and wondering how it could possibly hold up. I was arguing that in a libertarian world for God know even one event exhaustively necessarily implies knowledge of all events exhaustively.

I also don't understand your first sentence above. I believe 'unless' should read 'less', no?

You may want to call us 'partially unsettled; partially settled (PUPST) theists'.


Knowing something that God brings about by His ability is not proof of exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all moral and mundane choices, unless you wrongly assume omnicausal determinism and deny LFW (talking in circles again).