ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

RobE

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

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.​

You've got me. I would have to quote all verses and scripture relating to the betrayal and death of Christ. Are we able to agree that there were indeed many scriptures and not just one which foretold of these events? Must I find and post that which we both know? I'll provide this one since I'd have to search for the one about Judas' death:

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.)

The fact He states it is fulfillment of scripture is sufficient towards the argument. I must assume that He's speaking of scripture in general. Which is fine when we consider the ultimate future free will act which is foretold of here. Now are you able to answer my question so that we might possible continue.....

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

themuzicman

Well-known member
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.​

You've got me. I would have to quote all verses and scripture relating to the betrayal and death of Christ. Are we able to agree that there were indeed many scriptures and not just one which foretold of these events? Must I find and post that which we both know?

No, I'm looking for the specific OT prophecy that you claim Jesus is saying is fulfilled by Judas' reprobation.

I'll provide this one since I'd have to search for the one about Judas' death:

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.)

Just in case you didn't know... this isn't an OT prophecy.

The fact He states it is fulfillment of scripture is sufficient towards the argument. I must assume that He's speaking of scripture in general. Which is fine when we consider the ultimate future free will act which is foretold of here.

No, it's not "fine". You have yet to show exactly what was to be fulfilled from the prophecy. Was Jesus meaning that one of the 12 would turn against Him? Did Jesus mean that Satan would enter him and make him do stuff? Did Jesus mean that one of them would kill himself as a result?

The underlying prophecy is important to understand what exactly is being fulfilled.

Now are you able to answer my question so that we might possible continue.....

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

SOrry, you haven't answered a very simple precursor to understanding the cause of the reprobation: What prophecy was being fulfilled?

We may find, after you do your homework, that reprobation wasn't prophesied at all, but that Jesus is referring to something else.

Muz
 

RobE

New member
No, I'm looking for the specific OT prophecy that you claim Jesus is saying is fulfilled by Judas' reprobation.

Just in case you didn't know... this isn't an OT prophecy.

Nor does it need to be. It simply must take place before Judas' death.

No, it's not "fine". You have yet to show exactly what was to be fulfilled from the prophecy. Was Jesus meaning that one of the 12 would turn against Him? Did Jesus mean that Satan would enter him and make him do stuff? Did Jesus mean that one of them would kill himself as a result?

The underlying prophecy is important to understand what exactly is being fulfilled.

Not when you realize that Jesus is predicting a future act which was based upon a free will agent's acts:

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.

SOrry, you haven't answered a very simple precursor to understanding the cause of the reprobation: What prophecy was being fulfilled?

Well, from my perspective the cause of Judas' acts are Judas. There's no need for me to explain my self-evident position. Now I've answered my own question for you. Why don't you answer it for me.

We may find, after you do your homework, that reprobation wasn't prophesied at all, but that Jesus is referring to something else.

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

No homework necessary. Christ points to the object of the prophecy with His own words. Now, what was the cause of Judas reprobation?
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Nor does it need to be. It simply must take place before Judas' death.

What must take place?

Not when you realize that Jesus is predicting a future act which was based upon a free will agent's acts:

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.

Have you actually asked yourself whether this was a future act?

John 18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples. 2 Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. 3 Judas then, having received the [Roman] cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, ^came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.​

LOL... Judas was already lost when Jesus prayed this.

You really need to do your homework before you go on these fishing trips.

Well, from my perspective the cause of Judas' acts are Judas. There's no need for me to explain my self-evident position. Now I've answered my own question for you. Why don't you answer it for me.

Except that it's not predictive in John 17... IT ALREADY HAPPENED! LOL!

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

And he was already lost.

No homework necessary. Christ points to the object of the prophecy with His own words. Now, what was the cause of Judas reprobation?

Well, now, if you're referring to Jesus' words, those are post-reprobation. If you're referring to what Jesus said was "Scripture", then you'll have to go back and do your homework and tell us what OT prophecy Jesus was referring to.

Muz
 

RobE

New member
What must take place?

Have you actually asked yourself whether this was a future act?

Judas being judged and sentenced to an eternity in Hell. Yes it is still a future act, as it has not yet occurred.

John 18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples. 2 Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. 3 Judas then, having received the [Roman] cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, ^came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.​

LOL... Judas was already lost when Jesus prayed this.

Only if repentence was impossible at this point. Are you saying God withdrew sufficient Grace for Judas' salvation?

You really need to do your homework before you go on these fishing trips.

Except that it's not predictive in John 17... IT ALREADY HAPPENED! LOL!

And he was already lost.

Keep laughing. The fact that Judas is not yet judged still eludes you. Just as in your debate with Lee. If Judas' was dead when Christ prayed you would have a valid point. The problem is you're too clever so the understanding of events eludes you.

Well, now, if you're referring to Jesus' words, those are post-reprobation. If you're referring to what Jesus said was "Scripture", then you'll have to go back and do your homework and tell us what OT prophecy Jesus was referring to.

Muz

OT? What's the significance as long as it happened when Judas still drew breath. Perhaps, Jesus was speaking of His own impending murder by free will agents. Judas played a significant role in that prophecy. The fact that these are all foreknown free acts doesn't seem to phase you in your current frame of mind.

Obviously, I see you don't wish to answer the question put to you because it is destructive of your own position. Too bad. Your Calvinism was progressing quite nicely until you embraced contradiction as your foundation.
 

lee_merrill

New member
Wide is the way ... many; Narrow is the way ... few; only a 'remnant'? Who says that ALL do not have an opportunity to repent?
Not me...

The two verses above say that they had an opportunity to believe/repent ... when Jesus did miracles there … they did not repent.
Fine, now (as Rob pointed out to you here) the question remains, if only a remnant will be saved, not all, and not most, and not none, and if salvation is a free decision (Muz and Calvinism notwithstanding) then how can God know this?

'God's sentence on earth' means what?
It means he decided only a remnant would be saved, not that he observed this, or he thought it might be true, rather, he decided this would happen.

Romans 9:27-29 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea, only the remnant will be saved. For the Lord will carry out his sentence on earth with speed and finality." It is just as Isaiah said previously: "Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have become like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah."

Blessings,
Lee
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
Judas being judged and sentenced to an eternity in Hell. Yes it is still a future act, as it has not yet occurred.

LOL... So, you're saying that Judas could STILL repent?

Only if repentence was impossible at this point. Are you saying God withdrew sufficient Grace for Judas' salvation?

Withdrew? When did Judas have it?

Keep laughing. The fact that Judas is not yet judged still eludes you. Just as in your debate with Lee. If Judas' was dead when Christ prayed you would have a valid point. The problem is you're too clever so the understanding of events eludes you.

That's laughable. Go read John 6:44. If God doesn't draw him, then Judas ain't repenting. Period. That was the end of Lee's argument, too.

OT? What's the significance as long as it happened when Judas still drew breath. Perhaps, Jesus was speaking of His own impending murder by free will agents. Judas played a significant role in that prophecy. The fact that these are all foreknown free acts doesn't seem to phase you in your current frame of mind.

Do you believe that any person is able to come to Christ, without God first drawing him?

Obviously, I see you don't wish to answer the question put to you because it is destructive of your own position. Too bad. Your Calvinism was progressing quite nicely until you embraced contradiction as your foundation.

Actually, I just destroyed your question by pointing out the stupidity of it! You've tried to move the goalposts, except that that didn't work, either...

And now you try to back out. What a shock.

Muz
 

themuzicman

Well-known member
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples. 2 Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. 3 Judas then, having received the [Roman] cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, ^came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.​

Here, we see that before Jesus prayed, Judas had already betrayed Him. He was the one doomed to destruction.

Now, the rest of your question is asking to prove a negative, but we do know that only those that God draws are able to come to Him. Thus, God was in control of whether Judas was able to repent or not.

In order to fulfill prophecy (and remember that I've already said that God, through His actions, fulfills His word), Judas was not enable to repent, and so he was lost.

QED.

Muz
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"Peter, you might deny me three times."
"Before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."

Which is the correct statement above?
"40 days and Nineveh might be destroyed!"

"40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed!"

Which is the correct statement above?

I say again, Peter could have repented.

Is there a difference between determinism and foreknowledge?
Yes, of course!

You should always be on the look out for words that end with "ism". They very often do not mean the same thing as the word without "ism" on the end.

Things that are foreknown are determined but that does make it "determinism".

Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. - source

I say quote two is the accurate one. Either Christ knew Peter would deny or God made it happen.
I say quote two is the accurate one as well and that Peter could have repented just as Nineveh did.

Here are two instances.
Revelation 5:5 Revelation 7:13
Revelation 5:4 So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.”

Revelation 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
14 And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”​
These read to me as though John is not predicting that these words will be said in the future but that the Elder told him this while he was seeing the vision, as though he were narrating.

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

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.
Foreknowledge means to know something in advance - period. I don't care about your opinion concerning the definition. The definition is what it is. You might disagree with me about what God does and does not foreknow but I see no difference in the definition of foreknowledge itself.

Mine is simple, yours has all kinds of qualifiers and nuances.
How is mine full of qualifiers and nuances?

God knows things in advance. He does not know everything in advance but that doesn't mean he doesn't know a lot of things. My 4 year old could understand that. It isn't complicated at all.

If you want to talk about complicated lets discuss how one can have free will and God know everything you will ever do. Now that's complicated.

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.
No it isn't! The definition of foreknowledge is to know something in advance. The something known does not have to be the exhaustive contents of the entire future.

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."
It means to know something in advance.


Main Entry: fore·know
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)fȯr-ˈnō\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): fore·knew \ˈnü, -ˈnyü\; fore·known \-ˈnōn\; fore·know·ing
Date: 14th century

: to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation

Webster

Prognosis: Literally precognition
Strong's 4268

See also proginosko (Strong's 4267)

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Lon

Well-known member
"40 days and Nineveh might be destroyed!"

"40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed!"

Which is the correct statement above?

Patman quoted Ezekiel correctly. It was always understood that if Ninevah repented they'd receive mercy.
Show me a like passage for Peter if it exists.
I say again, Peter could have repented.
Obfuscation, not only the denial, the three times as well. Jesus foreknew the free actions of another individual. This is the point of our conversation. It shows foreknowledge as I have defined it.
Yes, of course!

You should always be on the look out for words that end with "ism". They very often do not mean the same thing as the word without "ism" on the end.

-ism in this case being the quality of determining. I see no problem here.
Things that are foreknown are determined but that does make it "determinism".

Does or doesn't? If I foreknow Peter is going to deny 3 times, it doesn't mean I determined it. Muz is in this conversation with Rob and Lee concerning whether something foreknown has to be determined as well with Judas' foreknown betrayal.
Determinism is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behavior, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. - source


I say quote two is the accurate one as well and that Peter could have repented just as Nineveh did.

The coincidence has to be tread carefully. We are given a prophecy about Nineveh but it isn't a foreknowledge statement if we look to Patman's Ezekiel passage where if they repented it wouldn't take place.

I see a distinct disqualifying difference between the two correlations.

Revelation 5:4 So I wept much, because no one was found worthy to open and read the scroll, or to look at it. 5 But one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep. Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed to open the scroll and to loose its seven seals.”

Revelation 7:13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, “Who are these arrayed in white robes, and where did they come from?”
14 And I said to him, “Sir, you know.”​
These read to me as though John is not predicting that these words will be said in the future but that the Elder told him this while he was seeing the vision, as though he were narrating.

No, I'm not saying 'prediction' here, but trying to show that present smacks right into future in the passage. It is a time problem/consideratiion for background discussion on what is plausible and what is science fiction. I'm just trying to elucidate plausibility for knowing a future that hasn't happened yet in God's economy. There are serious questions to ask for some of our foundational assertations.

thank you

Foreknowledge means to know something in advance - period. I don't care about your opinion concerning the definition. The definition is what it is. You might disagree with me about what God does and does not foreknow but I see no difference in the definition of foreknowledge itself.
Again, I appreciate this about you and why I choose to quote you. It isn't held by all OVers, so don't get me wrong. It is a point of agreement. Some of our suppositions ensuing are different, but on the definition, I truly appreciate your hard stance.

How is mine full of qualifiers and nuances?

God knows things in advance. He does not know everything in advance but that doesn't mean he doesn't know a lot of things. My 4 year old could understand that. It isn't complicated at all.

I see determining as part of foreknowledge but too narrowing for the defintion of it.
If you want to talk about complicated lets discuss how one can have free will and God know everything you will ever do. Now that's complicated.
I don't disagree with that, but we are talking about the basis of foreknowing something in such a discussion, rather than 'foreknowledge' itself at that point in the discussion.
No it isn't! The definition of foreknowledge is to know something in advance. The something known does not have to be the exhaustive contents of the entire future.

Agreed, that would be the difference between foreknowledge and EDF.
It means to know something in advance.


Main Entry: fore·know
Pronunciation: \(ˌ)fȯr-ˈnō\
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): fore·knew \ˈnü, -ˈnyü\; fore·known \-ˈnōn\; fore·know·ing
Date: 14th century

: to have previous knowledge of : know beforehand especially by paranormal means or by revelation

Webster

Prognosis: Literally precognition
Strong's 4268

See also proginosko (Strong's 4267)

Resting in Him,
Clete

What I most appreciate about your understanding here is that you've said we really don't have it. I greatly appreciate your input here on a clear OV stance where it has been difficult to get to the brass tacks in previous discussions. Many OVer's simply do not have a handle on much of this as you do.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Lon,

I don't know what else there is to say on this. I could repeat myself about the Peter thing and give additional Biblical examples of prophesies that didn't come to pass as stated but you've heard all that before and you've basically conceded everything else.

Is there some specific issue you think I should expound upon further? Is so, just say so and I will.

Resting in Him,
Clete
 

RobE

New member
LOL... So, you're saying that Judas could STILL repent?

Yes. I'm a free will theist and not a determinist.

Withdrew? When did Judas have it?

Apparently, along with the determinists you believe grace is always effecacious. This being your belief then isn't it true that God only saves those that He desires to save and no others?

That's laughable. Go read John 6:44. If God doesn't draw him, then Judas ain't repenting. Period. That was the end of Lee's argument, too.

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.​

I'm afraid dear leopard(Muz) that was only the the very beginning of the old Jack Russell's(Lee) argument. Will no open theist come to your rescue even now that he has you within his grasp?

Do you believe that any person is able to come to Christ, without God first drawing him?

No. I believe that according to His desire to save ALL men, God draws all men. Of course He foreknows which men will respond positively to His drawing. They are called the elect in scripture.

For I tell you truly, this and any discussion we've ever had aside, that if Grace is effecacious in nature then all would be saved per God's desire. This is a warning to you personally since no open theist will come to your aid. As a fellow free will theist I urge you to open your eyes and consider the ramifications of your determinist thinking. God refusing to give the gift of grace under such circumstances results in positive reprobation.

Nothing requires God to do so, but does this truly represent the nature of a loving God? One who would die for the world. Accordingly, those who God denied grace would be damned. At judgement they would be righeously punished for their sins. They would never have had hope of any salvation because the means towards salvation required the gift of Grace which was not given. God would be just to do this because He is indeed God. I, however, and many Christians would find this to be against His nature as described within scripture.

Where is the need for faith in this? You either have been given the Grace and are saved; or, you have been denied the Grace and are doomed. Faith is unecessary except to fulfill the letter of the law to believe. Determinism is your path.

Actually, I just destroyed your question by pointing out the stupidity of it! You've tried to move the goalposts, except that that didn't work, either...

And now you try to back out. What a shock.

Muz


No, you are only now discovering my argument; that it contains argument on top of argument. I'm backing out of nothing. What was the cause of Judas ultimately becoming reprobate? Do you wish to stand by John 6:44 and determinism?
 

RobE

New member
Me too, RobE.

I am grieved and disappointed to realize what an enemy you are to the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

:cry:

Nang

Well Nang, there's always hope. Pray for me that I might know the truth. This is my true desire. If your position is right then my prayer is to accept it! Remember, I freely admit that my knowledge is not complete. I listen to your gentle rebuke with open ears, mind, and heart! God bless you.

Your Brother(misguided or not) in Christ,
Rob Mauldin
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Rob,

If Satan rebuked you gently, would you thank him too?

If her position is right, then you're wrong because God made you wrong and you will only ever be right if God arbitrarily decides that you're going to change your mind and trust in the arbitrary bully version of God that Calvinism teaches.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Lon,

I don't know what else there is to say on this. I could repeat myself about the Peter thing and give additional Biblical examples of prophesies that didn't come to pass as stated but you've heard all that before and you've basically conceded everything else.

Is there some specific issue you think I should expound upon further? Is so, just say so and I will.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I believe you are correct. Your stance here puts a few things to rest (like the future is unknowable as some OVer's suggest). We see our differences clearly enough and are entrenched so at this point, thanks for making the OV position clear for me as I continue to talk about it with other OVer's who don't understand their position as well.
 

lee_merrill

New member
1 When Jesus had spoken these words, He went forth with His disciples over the ravine of the Kidron, where there was a garden, in which He entered with His disciples. 2 Now Judas also, who was betraying Him, knew the place, for Jesus had often met there with His disciples. 3 Judas then, having received the [Roman] cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons.​

Here, we see that before Jesus prayed, Judas had already betrayed Him. He was the one doomed to destruction.
So my question is, when was the decision made that was irrevocable, and where do we see this moment described?

Now, the rest of your question is asking to prove a negative, but we do know that only those that God draws are able to come to Him.
No, I'm not asking you to prove an negative, I'm asking if it's fair to condemn people who did not believe, when God did not draw them.

Clete said:
"40 days and Nineveh might be destroyed!"

"40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed!"

Which is the correct statement above?
As Augustine said, Nineveh was overthrown (the word is not actually "destroyed"), by repentance (the same word "overthrown" is used in matters of the heart elsewhere), instead of by destruction.

I say again, Peter could have repented.
Yet Jesus said "Truly, truly," or "I tell you the truth," his way of saying "This is quite certain"--when he knew it was not?!
 

lee_merrill

New member
I am grieved and disappointed to realize what an enemy you are to the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ.
Well, I believe Rob is a friend to the gospel of God's grace, he certainly has a graciousness about him, this would be I think the grace of God. And I certainly believed at one time in general free will, so views do change--I expect mine will change some too along the way.

Now this ol' terrier may glom onto 'is leg some time, if I can get 'im to discuss some Calvinism with me! :dog:

Blessings one and all,
Lee <- I might just bung up me teeth, tho
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Me too, RobE.

I am grieved and disappointed to realize what an enemy you are to the gospel of the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

:cry:

Nang


Is he a godless unbeliever or a believer in Christ, even if he is not a cultic Calvinist? (I say this only because making Calvinism essential for salvation is cultic. Most non-extreme Calvinists are able to recognize that Arminian people worship and love the same Christ).

Augustine believed that unbaptized babies go to hell. Do you believe this?
Some also taught that martyrdom could save an unbaptized believer. Do you believe this?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top