ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Lon]

He didn't. At least not in the sense that we are discussing here. Peter could have repented.

"Peter, you might deny me three times."
"Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."

Which is the correct statement above?

I don't understand the question. My understanding about what?

Is there a difference between determinism and foreknowledge?

I say quote two is the accurate one. Either Christ knew Peter would deny or God made it happen.

Give me the Scripture reference so I can see specifically what you are talking about.

Here are two instances.
Revelation 5:5 Revelation 7:13

I cannot think of any qualifiers except to say that when quoting me you need to do so accurately and in context. That might sound obvious but you seem to have had trouble with this in the past.

I agree, it is hard to quote context when I don't always understand your context, but I do endeaver to correctly post OV quotes.

You aren't making any sense to me, Lon.

Foreknowledge means to know something in advance. If God knows something (anything at all) in advance then He has foreknowledge. Simple!

It seems to me that you are needlessly complicating the issue.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Not where my understanding of foreknowledge is different than yours. I say God can and does know future actions of man. He named Josiah 300 years before Josiah was born. He knew Josiah would be born , that his father wouldn't be infertile, that Josiah would be a good king. etc. etc. God knew the number of days David would live and wrote them down before David was born. Jesus knew Peter would deny Him 3 times. We are clearly not on the same page for a definition of foreknowledge.

Mine is simple, yours has all kinds of qualifiers and nuances. Here is where you say I misquoted you. I said you've told me outright in the clock analogy thread that future cannot be known, but this is the exact definition of foreknowledge.

It does not mean predetermine, there is a great Greek word for that. It doesn't mean predict, there is a great Greek word for that too. It means literally "Knows the future."

 

[lee_merrill]

You have yet to make a case for this being a problem.

So Open Theism has no problem with "only a remnant being saved" being God's sentence on earth? That's good, because it's Scripture. Only I note no other Open Theists signing up for this, for this is Calvinism.

Lee: If people have no choice but to sin in this life, then is the condemnation fair?

Muz: No one has said that people have no choice but to sin.

Yet if some have no opportunity to repent, by God's decision (only a remnant) I must ask again how is it they are condemned for not repenting?

Matthew 11:20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.

2 Thessalonians 2:12 And so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

What if they could not believe, because God did not draw them? Is condemnation then, fair?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Why doesn't that surprise me.

I was being sarcastic, but you knew that, I suppose.

 

[Philetus]

So Open Theism has no problem with "only a remnant being saved" being God's sentence on earth? That's good, because it's Scripture. Only I note no other Open Theists signing up for this, for this is Calvinism.


Yet if some have no opportunity to repent, by God's decision (only a remnant) I must ask again how is it they are condemned for not repenting?

Matthew 11:20 Then Jesus began to denounce the cities in which most of his miracles had been performed, because they did not repent.

2 Thessalonians 2:12 And so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

What if they could not believe, because God did not draw them? Is condemnation then, fair?

Blessings,
Lee

Wide is the way ... many; Narrow is the way ... few; only a 'remnant'? Who says that ALL do not have an opportunity to repent? The two verses above say that they had an opportunity to believe/repent ... when Jesus did miracles there … they did not repent. :doh:

Your preoccupation with remnant is wearing thin as an old garment because you haven't made a case. Nobody has given evidence that they have any idea what you are thinking or why you think this is a problem for Open Theism.

'God's sentence on earth' means what?

If it IS scripture it IS good. If it is your jumbled up thinking it is not good. Lee, it is not good for man to be alone ... and you seem to be all alone on this one. Nobody is jumping on your bandwagon trying to even pretend to care enough to figure out what you are saying.


Philetus

 

[Philetus]

Why doesn't that surprise me.

Because you know everything? :crackup:

 

[Philetus]

Yes, now this is definite knowledge of a choice concerning salvation, and God decides that most will not have an opportunity to repent--this would be in contradiction I believe, to OVT views of salvation.


Eh? I'm not sure what you are saying here...

Blessings,
Lee

Eh? Go figure. It means you made both lists.

'Definite knowledge' of a choice concerning an individual's salvation? Open Theism never questions God's definite knowledge. That verse says nothing about "most not having an opportunity to repent" it only says many won't. If you meant to say 'definite FOREknowledge then you just secured you place in the Stupid hall of fame. If you think it means everyone who is drawn repents then be a good Calvinist and stop trying to put that crap on Open Theism. It doesn't apply. It is your own jumbled up thinking resulting from years of buying into a bad system of theology.

Philetus

 

[themuzicman]

Is there a difference between determinism and foreknowledge?

Determinism means that all things are determined beforehand. This is a potential source of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge, in an of itself, just means that someone knows something is going to happen (in some way) before it happens. It doesn't even have to be definite, but could happen in any number of ways.

See my thread on foreknowledge

Muz

 

[RobE]

Determinism means that all things are determined beforehand. This is a potential source of exhaustive, definite foreknowledge.

Foreknowledge, in an of itself, just means that someone knows something is going to happen (in some way) before it happens. It doesn't even have to be definite, but could happen in any number of ways.

See my thread on foreknowledge

Muz

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.​

Let's ask again then:

Did Judas become lost through....
1) predetermination
2) foreknown free choices

Remember #2 requires the existence of EDF and free will choices.

Simply claiming non-exhaustive foreknowledge or non-definite foreknowledge renders one or two outcomes:

1) The definition of foreknowledge is not 'to know beforehand'
2) Jesus words were speculative and not necessarily true

 

[themuzicman]

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.​

Let's ask again then:

Did Judas become lost through....
1) predetermination
2) foreknown free choices

Remember #2 requires the existence of EDF and free will choices.

Neither. You've not represented all the possible choices.

Simply claiming non-exhaustive foreknowledge or non-definite foreknowledge renders one or two outcomes:

1) The definition of foreknowledge is not 'to know beforehand'
2) Jesus words were speculative and not necessarily true

Again, incorrect, because you cannot get outside of your own presuppositions.

Muz

 

[RobE]

Lee, it is not good for man to be alone ... and you seem to be all alone on this one. Nobody is jumping on your bandwagon trying to even pretend to care enough to figure out what you are saying.

We'll except for one here, everyone else knows exactly the point Lee is making. Muz knows it, Godrulz knows it, I know it, Lee knows it, etc., etc., etc. If you don't know it then you're the one.

1. God foretells that some(not all and not none) will be saved.
2. Salvation is a free decision according to open theism(so all, some, or none might be saved).
3. God's foreknowledge exists prior to those free decisions.

How can that be?

It's the same question that I asked.

1. God foretells that Judas will not be saved
2. Salvation is a free decision according to open theism(so Judas might be saved, or might not be saved)
3. God's foreknowledge exists prior to Judas' free decision.

How can that be?

The only possible answers are:
1. God predetermines these free actions
2. Foreknowledge of free acts is possible

Unless you wish to promote an alternative to these two solutions then pick one and let's get on with it.

Muz chose his own solution 3. Foreknowledge doesn't exist

Which renders only one solution: 1. God predetermines these free actions.

Perhaps you wish to participate in the discussion instead of whatever it is your doing and profer your own solution.

Thanks,
Rob

 

[RobE]

Neither. You've not represented all the possible choices.

Again, incorrect, because you cannot get outside of your own presuppositions.

Muz

What was the cause of Judas' ultimate reprobation?

 

[themuzicman]

Define what you mean by "reprobation."

Muz

 

[RobE]

Define what you mean by "reprobation."

Muz

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

 

[themuzicman]

And what Scripture is being fulfilled? What is Jesus referring to?

Muz

 

[RobE]

And what Scripture is being fulfilled? What is Jesus referring to?

Muz

How does this address the question?

The question was: Rob: What was the cause of Judas' ultimate reprobation?​

You're answering the next question first.

Again: What was the cause of Judas' ultimate reprobation?​

 

[themuzicman]

How does this address the question?

IT addresses the question because the nature of the prophecy given tells us about how it was "fulfilled."

The question was: Rob: What was the cause of Judas' ultimate reprobation?​

You're answering the next question first.

Again: What was the cause of Judas' ultimate reprobation?​

Again, we have to know what Scripture was being fulfilled in order to understand the nature of the reprobation.

Muz

 

[RobE]

IT addresses the question because the nature of the prophecy given tells us about how it was "fulfilled."



Again, we have to know what Scripture was being fulfilled in order to understand the nature of the reprobation.

Muz

Not at all. The scripture tells us of the reprobation aside from the prophecy.

'None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction'​

 

[themuzicman]

Not at all. The scripture tells us of the reprobation aside from the prophecy.

'None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction'​

Ah, but the prophecy itself may tell us more.

You don't know where this comes from, do you...

Muz

 

[RobE]

Ah, but the prophecy itself may tell us more.

You don't know where this comes from, do you...

Muz

Yes, I do. It speaks of the manner of Judas death.

The fact that Christ states it foretells of Judas' ultimate damnation is sufficient proof of it being applicable to the situation.

Now what caused Judas damnation or reprobation if you prefer?

 

[themuzicman]

Yes, I do. It speaks of the manner of Judas death.

The fact that Christ states it foretells of Judas' ultimate damnation is sufficient proof of it being applicable to the situation.

Now what caused Judas damnation or reprobation if you prefer?

What is the chapter and verse of the prophecy Jesus is speaking of.

Muz