ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

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

Most OT would believe that God wanted Judas to repent initially. It was only near the end that Satan entered him.

 

[godrulz]

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.

Based on Isaiah 46 and 48, God does foreknow some things, but not all things (2 motifs). There is an alternate understanding of Judas, Peter, Cyrus. These objections must be responded to, but you have a bigger theological, logical, biblical problem defending EDF than we do giving possible explanations for the exceptions.

 

[godrulz]

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

Our NT would be different if Jesus did not have his bones broke. The OT verse would not have been applied to what happened:think:

 

[RobE]

Based on Isaiah 46 and 48, God does foreknow some things, but not all things (2 motifs). There is an alternate understanding of Judas, Peter, Cyrus. These objections must be responded to, but you have a bigger theological, logical, biblical problem defending EDF than we do giving possible explanations for the exceptions.

Well, I understand what you're trying to say. The fact remains however that God is unable to bring about evil acts because of His righteous nature. Your idea that God brings all prophecy about through His own actions is defeated by this. It allows us to conclude that God is unable to bring prophecies concerning evil acts to pass through His own power.

Also, if God foreknows a free act then your assertion that foreknowledge eliminates freedom is doomed. Christ announced foreknowledge of a disciple's betrayal. This, the scriptures proclaim, was a free act even though foreknowledge of the event was present.

Repentence offers a significant problem for these ideas as well. Especially when Christ states that a person is 'doomed to destruction'. The person in question had not committed the act yet and wasn't even dead at that point. If the person is still able to freely repent, then its possible when Christ said this that repentence might occur. Christ's statements leave no room for this to occur. Either it wouldn't be allowed or it was foreknown.

Reprobation is itself an effect brought about by a free will act. Christ's statement foretells of that future effect. This destroys the idea of an incompatibility between foreknowledge and free will.

Saying that God is able to foreknow free acts based on present knowledge doesn't help the open view since this is Molinism and not open theism. It's an admission of compatibility between foreknowledge and free will.

It would appear that we have the same problem. EDF and free will must be compatible in some way for your defenses and my beliefs to be true. By insisting that there is no compatibility then you are dismissing the words of Jesus Christ and those of Godrulz as well.

 

[RobE]

Our NT would be different if Jesus did not have his bones broke. The OT verse would not have been applied to what happened:think:

True, but would Christ still have been betrayed by a disciple as He foretold?

 

[lee_merrill]

Our NT would be different if Jesus did not have his bones broke. The OT verse would not have been applied to what happened:think:

Surely you are not saying the apostles just went and picked verses out that matched the circumstances and called them fulfillments of prophecies. That's a well-known fallacy of drawing the target around the arrow after you shoot it.

 

[RobE]

Surely you are not saying the apostles just went and picked verses out that matched the circumstances and called them fulfillments of prophecies. That's a well-known fallacy of drawing the target around the arrow after you shoot it.

Is this a form of deception and inspired by the Holy Spirit simultaneously?:think:

 

[Lon]

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

Shoot, this needs some clarity work, brosky. First of all, we were talking about doctrinal books over narrative passages very recently, so you have to clarify your definition of 'doctrine' there for sure.

Second, the context for prophecy, narrative, and consistency are all jumping in the middle thoughts which will lead Lighthouse to accuse insanity or stupidity or whatever (he is not a contextual reader at all, he reads just a single post and is already clueless-no offense intended Lighthouse, it is just your personality trait that is easy to discern and not meant as a slam-albeit, it does tease Phil a tad). This will push him over the edge.

Thanks mate.

Lon

 

[Lon]

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?

Then from your footnote quote:

God could know everything in the future, if He wanted to, but He doesn't.

When I was asked the question: “If God knows every move we make before we make it, then how do we have the choice?”, that was one of the best questions I’ve ever been asked. To begin, we have to agree that God knows everything. It tells us that in 1 John 3:20 For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things.

This seemed a sound statement. He agreed with nonOV.

But, if man has any free choice, that is, make any choices not totally predestined by God, then, those future free acts would be unknowable. The Bible doesn’t say anywhere, “God knows the future, or God doesn’t know the future.” But it does make statements which show that our almighty God does not know some of the future events of the somewhat free agent, man.

Then philosophy hits the fan: "Wait! He can't know!" Even though he just said God does. Now Bob is going to show this from a narrative passage!
OUCH:

God shows that man has free will, because He doesn’t know for sure what the future actions of a man will be in all cases. That’s what it shows us in Genesis 22. Gen 22:12,15-17 And He said, “Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.” 15 Then the Angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time out of heaven, 16 and said: “By Myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only son; 17 “blessing I will bless you,” etc.

When God said, “now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.”, it shows that God did not know with certainty, that Abraham would be willing to sacrifice his son to God. When Abraham proved to be faithful, God interrupted Abraham and rescued the son from death.

As if one narrative wasn't enough:

There is a passage in Exodus where God said, perhaps. Exo 13:17 Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, “Lest perhaps the people change their minds [The Hebrew word is: nacham] when they see war, and return to Egypt.”

There’s another one in Jer 26:1-3: In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, this word came from the LORD, saying, 2 “Thus says the LORD: ‘Stand in the court of the Lord’s house, and speak to all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord’s house, all the words that I command you to speak to them. Do not diminish a word. 3 Perhaps everyone will listen and turn from his evil way, that I may repent concerning the calamity which I purpose to bring on them because of the evil of their doings.’”

Jer 36:1-3 Now it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, king of Judah, that this word came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying: 2 “Take a scroll of a book and write on it all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel, against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah even to this day. 3 “It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the adversities which I purpose to bring upon them, that everyone may turn from his evil way, that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin.”

Eze 12:1-3 Now the word of the LORD came to me, saying: 2 “Son of man, you dwell in the midst of a rebellious house, which has eyes to see but does not see, and ears to hear but does not hear; for they are a rebellious house. 3 Therefore, son of man, prepare your belongings for captivity, and go into captivity by day in their sight. You shall go from your place into captivity to another place in their sight. It may be that they will consider, though they are a rebellious house.”

God says some things will happen, and they do not.
Jer 3:6-15 The LORD said also to me in the days of Josiah the king: “Have you seen what backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and there played the harlot. 7 “And I [the Lord] said, after she had done all these things, ‘She will return to Me’ But she did not return. And her treacherous sister Judah saw it. 8 “Then I saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear, but went and played the harlot also. 9 “So it came to pass, through her casual harlotry, that she defiled the land and committed adultery with stones and trees. 10 “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah has not turned to Me with her whole heart, but in pretense,” says the LORD. 11 Then the LORD said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. 12 “Go and proclaim these words toward the north, and say: ‘Return, backsliding Israel,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not cause My anger to fall on you. For I am merciful,’ says the LORD; ‘I will not remain angry forever. 13 Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the LORD your God, And have scattered your charms To alien deities under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,’ says the LORD. 14 “Return, O backsliding children,” says the LORD; “for I am married to you. I will take you, one from a city and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion. 15 “And I will give you shepherds according to My heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.”

God didn’t know.
Praise God for His grace,
Bob Hill

The danger is always pulling doctrine from narrative. Note that not one of those are doctrinal passages (teaching how you are supposed to think about and discern).

When doubt is planted for interpreting narrative inconsistently with doctrinal passages there is a huge problem. Bob Hill is a very gracious man and I'm not bringing his character into the discussion, but his doctrine. RobE has linked this passage and it is worthy of attention for addressing Rob's questions. If we build doctrine soley off of narrative as Bob H. has, there are serious consequences.

 

[Philetus]

Our NT would be different if Jesus did not have his bones broke. The OT verse would not have been applied to what happened:think:

Not exactly. At least not in all cases. But, in the verses you mention (Isaiah 46 & 48) the future events are spoken of as what God will do and are known only as such before the fact. There God making His intentions know before the fact is to eliminate the possibility of ascribing the events, when they happen, to ‘other gods’.

I think the fundamental difference in our use of foreknowledge and that of Lee and RobE is the reason for the impasse. Applying the same epistemological principles of to future possible events as to present and past realities keeps this thing going round and round. The future doesn’t exist as a known/observable reality. So it is awkward to say God foreknows some of the future but not all. Better to say that God interacts with humanity and sometimes makes His future interactions known before He acts. That is as close to anything like 'foreknowledge' that I can find in the scriptures. Simple textual criticism and keeping the total in tact when looking at particulars bears this out. One has to come to scripture with 'classical glasses' on to see it otherwise. The archaic term and what theology has done with it and that exist for the most part only in theological discussion doesn't help.

Philetus

 

[Nang]

Reprobation is itself an effect brought about by a free will act.

What "free" will act?

That is not the definition of reprobation at all.

Reprobation is God leaving men to suffer the penalties of their sin.

Reprobation is the human state of being under Godly curse and condemnation for sin; bereft of any hope of grace or salvation from God.

EDF and free will must be compatible in some way for your defenses and my beliefs to be true. By insisting that there is no compatibility then you are dismissing the words of Jesus Christ and those of Godrulz as well.

There is no compatibility between EDF and "free" will, for "free" will is non-existent.

It is either/or.

Either God has EDF (which I believe wholeheartedly He does), and there is no "free" will.

Or there is an autonomous agency attributable to man that precludes EDF.

The OT side with the fallacy of freedom of will; I take the side of Biblical truth that God has decreed and ordained according to EDF.

You might as well skip the middle ground, for it is not existent.

Nang

 

[Adamhart]

Well, Maybe God really don't mean what he said.:shocked: We can just change it to suit ourselves and mold God in our own image. Isn't a God that does not hate more lovable anyway. :dizzy:

i think jacob and esau represent tribes of israel? or something to do with the majority of the old testament?

 

[Philetus]

Then from your footnote quote:


This seemed a sound statement. He agreed with nonOV.


Then philosophy hits the fan: "Wait! He can't know!" Even though he just said God does. Now Bob is going to show this from a narrative passage!
OUCH:


As if one narrative wasn't enough:


The danger is always pulling doctrine from narrative. Note that not one of those are doctrinal passages (teaching how you are supposed to think about and discern).

When doubt is planted for interpreting narrative inconsistently with doctrinal passages there is a huge problem. Bob Hill is a very gracious man and I'm not bringing his character into the discussion, but his doctrine. RobE has linked this passage and it is worthy of attention for addressing Rob's questions. If we build doctrine soley off of narrative as Bob H. has, there are serious consequences.

Soley is the pivotal word. (Might not be the right spelling.)
The greater danger is destroying the narrative with doctrines based on a single motif or string of proof texts to make other texts non applicable to the WHOLE TRUTH. It is as important to exegete images as it is to exegete words. Something seldom if ever taught in seminaries until recently.

It is much like killing the Spirit with over emphasis of the letter.

Philetus

 

[Philetus]

What "free" will act?

That is not the definition of reprobation at all.

Reprobation is God leaving men to suffer the penalties of their sin.

Reprobation is the human state of being under Godly curse and condemnation for sin; bereft of any hope of grace or salvation from God.





There is no compatibility between EDF and "free" will, for "free" will is non-existent.

It is either/or.

Either God has EDF (which I believe wholeheartedly He does), or there is no "free" will.

The OT side with the fallacy of freedom of will; I take the side of Biblical truth that God has decreed and ordained according to EDF.

You might as well skip the middle ground, for it is not existent.

Nang

I said to RobE over a year ago "THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!" :bang:

Darn it! I wish our view was Biblical too.

I think you meant: If God has EDF (which I believe wholeheartedly He does), then there is no "free" will.

And of course since there is He doesn't. :singer:

Miss ya Nang
Philetus

 

[Nang]

Miss ya Nang
Philetus

Why? I haven't gone anywhere . . . :wazzup:

I am posting daily.

Do you only read this one thread?

Nang

 

[Philetus]

Why? I haven't gone anywhere . . . :wazzup:

I am posting daily.

Do you only read this one thread?

Nang

Theres others?:noway:

 

[Nang]

Theres others?:noway:

Oh, yeah . . .there is Muz!

He is all over the place. And must be dealt with. :box:

Nang

 

[godrulz]

True, but would Christ still have been betrayed by a disciple as He foretold?

At the time of Jesus' words, Judas' heart had shifted. It was present knowledge and apparent what Judas was purposing to do. God can read minds and see circumstances, you know. Jesus did not prophecy this until Judas went bad. He did not predict it when He was 12 in the Temple, right?

 

[godrulz]

Surely you are not saying the apostles just went and picked verses out that matched the circumstances and called them fulfillments of prophecies. That's a well-known fallacy of drawing the target around the arrow after you shoot it.

Many prophecies are predictive, but some are more illustrative. The latter is warranted only if the Holy Spirit applies this application through inspiration. Predictive prophecies often are based on God's ability to bring the future to pass by His ability and orchestration, not by supposed prescience of something that does not exist yet (crystal ball).

 

[godrulz]

Phil: The question is what aspects of the future are known as possible and which aspects are known as certain? The future does not become actual until the potential future becomes the fixed past through the present.

God can state His intentions about the Messiah in advance because He has the ability to bring about what He states. The same is true of judging wicked nations. This aspect of the future is known as certain. Because He does not purpose, intend, intervene in random lottery numbers, He would not predict with certainty the lottery draw from before the creation of the world. If He was to prophesy the lottery number for a certain date, He would have to intervene and cause the numbers to be picked. Contingency is an equal possibility of happening or not. Genuine freedom involves contingencies and possibilities, not actualities, necessities, certainties (though the latter do exist under different circumstances).