ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

:crackup:

Bah on you (from Reader) and Poohs upon you (from his wife.)

That should be sufficient explanation, and honest response to your claims.

Nang

Since he gave the information to find it I just reviewed that "other" thread at that "other" site. When asked by a Greek Orthodox how old he was, responding that he was 37, the fellow is "astonished", for he assumed Clete was only 13 years old. :rotfl:

Then when Reader summarizes all of his non-doctrinal beliefs in such a short period of time, I could not stop nodding at the accuracy of the list. Indeed, Reader "saw him coming".

He has pulled that stunt on other forums, but never lasts long, for he soon finds himself outgunned or simply told to move along and beats a hasty retreat back to where he can be safe.

 

[Nang]

Since he gave the information to find it I just reviewed that "other" thread at that "other" site. When asked by a Greek Orthodox how old he was, responding that he was 37, the fellow is "astonished", for he assumed Clete was only 13 years old. :rotfl:

Then when Reader summarizes all of his non-doctrinal beliefs in such a short period of time, I could not stop nodding at the accuracy of the list. Indeed, Reader "saw him coming".

He has pulled that stunt on other forums, but never lasts long, for he soon finds himself outgunned or simply told to move along and beats a hasty retreat back to where he can be safe.

:jump:

Thanks AMR for your willingness to be the affirmative sleuth . . .

Indeed, Clete had revealed his M.O. on another forum, prior to Reader's encounter with him, and had exposed what he thought was a fool-proof, argumentative apologetic for OT(which failed miserably on that prior site), so Reader was prepared to cut him off at the knees when he showed up.

Which Reader did.

:jump:


Nang

 

[Philetus]

Mean people suck.

Philetus

 

[Clete]

Thanks AMR for posting that link again.

I really do hope most of the people who read this little exchange of ours will actually go read the thread.

If anyone is interested and is having a hard time finding it, PM me and I'll send you a link straight to the thread itself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[lee_merrill]

Yes, ill will is unchristian, now let's leave off the "he did we did they did" please? and discuss the topic at hand, where it seems the Open Theists have fallen silent...

 

[RobE]

Yes, ill will is unchristian, now let's leave off the "he did we did they did" please? and discuss the topic at hand, where it seems the Open Theists have fallen silent...

I'm sure the 'ots' have concluded that the questions here have indeed been answered! The response so far seems to be that God has EDF of future free will decisions without having EDF of future free will decisions.

Let's give 'em a couple of days to come up with something else. If by that time there is still no response then I guess we should continue the discussion without dissent of the given ideas.....

Did Judas become lost through....

1) predetermination
2) foreknown free choices

I guess you should argue incompatibility between #1 and #2, while I argue compatibility between #1 and #2.

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

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

I'm not sure we have anything to discuss unless you believe #1 and #2 are exclusive of each other.

This idea has been soundly dealt with by myself and others:

Like all unsettled theists, you are hung up on fatalistic underlying assumptions. Fatalism teaches is that everything we do we do necessarily. For example:

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

This is a fallacious argument because what follows from (1) and (2) is not (3) but (3’):

3’. Therefore, x will happen.

In other words, it is unjustified to assert that x will necessarily (or must) happen. Rather, it is the case that x will happen. The fallacy is transferring the necessity of the inference to the conclusion. This point is easily illustrated:

1. Necessarily if Smith is a bachelor, Smith is unmarried.
2. Smith is a bachelor.
3. Therefore, Smith is necessarily unmarried.

Clearly Smith is not necessarily (that is, he must be) unmarried. He just is unmarried, but he is also perfectly free to be married. The valid form of the argument is as follows:

1. Necessarily if Smith is a bachelor, Smith is unmarried.
2. Smith is a bachelor.
3. Therefore, Smith is unmarried.

This valid form of the argument shows that Smith is free to remain a bachelor or to be married.

Remember the posts I've made claiming the 'ots' assign necessary action to unecessary events? I've yet to find an argument against compatibility which fails to do so. Perhaps you have one. I'm not sure it's possible when God's decree and knowledge existed simultaneously from eternity.

If you haven't an argument to present against this idea then we are in agreement! This being true then maybe titles should be suspended until further notice.:angel:

 

[lee_merrill]

Let's give 'em a couple of days to come up with something else. If by that time there is still no response ...

I shall continue my eulogy for OVT!

I'm not sure we have anything to discuss unless you believe #1 and #2 are exclusive of each other.

What I believe is that there is no free-will outside the will of God, i.e. that only people acting within God's will can freely choose--but that would seem to be a topic for another thread.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Clete]

I'm sure that you aren't a 'lone ranger' on this issue.

However, I seem to remember Bob Enyart saying that God is capable, but simply chooses not to know the future.

Find a quote if you can, I'd be interested to see his reasoning behind it. My suspicion is, however, that you didn't read his comments clearly.

The argument I presented before is below:

From post 5048:

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​

Lee also presented this idea in several posts:

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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

Since he gave the information to find it I just reviewed that "other" thread at that "other" site. When asked by a Greek Orthodox how old he was, responding that he was 37, the fellow is "astonished", for he assumed Clete was only 13 years old. :rotfl:

Then when Reader summarizes all of his non-doctrinal beliefs in such a short period of time, I could not stop nodding at the accuracy of the list. Indeed, Reader "saw him coming".

He has pulled that stunt on other forums, but never lasts long, for he soon finds himself outgunned or simply told to move along and beats a hasty retreat back to where he can be safe.

Actually, I've been to other forums and even with extreme care to stay civil in the face of down-right idiotic responses (even you would be ashamed of them, AMR), I still get my account revoked. Certainly, if your Greek Orthodox friend could read them, he would not only consider those arguing on your side to be juvenile, but delinquents.

 

[Lon]

Thanks AMR for posting that link again.

I really do hope most of the people who read this little exchange of ours will actually go read the thread.

If anyone is interested and is having a hard time finding it, PM me and I'll send you a link straight to the thread itself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Is mentioning the web against the rules here? It seems to me it is just linking like we do all the time here? What is the difference and could you give me the rule number on TOL where this is in conflict?

 

[lee_merrill]

Jesus' words were not speculative in the slightest but they were not necessarily true either. Jesus was not simply guessing, He knew Judas' heart ...

Well, if it's not necessarily true, then it's an estimate, call this a guess or not as you wish, in any case, to some degree it must have been speculative. It seems you're saying complete knowledge of A means B, based to some degree on A, is not a guess--but that does not follow, if Judas could have repented, then complete knowledge of Judas' heart does not tell us if he won't, or will.

 

[RobE]

Find a quote if you can, I'd be interested to see his reasoning behind it. My suspicion is, however, that you didn't read his comments clearly.

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.

Resting in Him,
Clete

It's important to look at the environment here. Jesus is praying for His disciples and for all of those who would come to believe in Him in the future. In the middle of this Christ states in a prayer to The Father:

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.​

We might say that the same idea which applies to the statement "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed!" would apply here, but there is no interaction with Judas to achieve repentence. Christ is simply stating to the Father that one of the disciples is lost fulfilling the scriptures. Christ isn't warning Judas or stating to Judas 'You will be doomed to destruction!', hoping that Judas will repent and achieve a better outcome. It's an entirely different situation than Nineveh. One which presents a totally bleak outlook for the results of Judas' free acts. This leads to the idea which Muz presented and ends in God actively willing Judas to spend eternity outside of His presence.

The only idea that is left is that God simply foreknew those free acts.
Jesus knowing Judas' heart wouldn't reveal future free acts according to open theism would it?

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.)​

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.

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.

Is this correct?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

However, I seem to remember Bob Enyart saying that God is capable, but simply chooses not to know the future.

From the Lamerson debate, Enyart writes:

"When God says to the wicked, “I, even I, will utterly forget you” (Jer. 23:39), we rightly constrain this as a figure of speech, not meaning that God will no longer even recall men like Esau or Judas, but that His mercy toward the wicked will not endure forever. So, when God says that memory of filth is a burden that He wants to blot out of His mind, we weigh that against our philosophical doctrine of omniscience. Settled View proponents prioritize the quantitative aspect of vast knowledge above the qualitative attributes of God as good and personal. The Settled View denies out-of-hand the possibility that God’s loathing of sin might bring Him to limit His recollection of lewd acts. A pornography video does not have to play eternally in God’s mind.

Passages of God’s desire to forget sin are far more literal and “exhaustive” than any strained “proof-texts” for omniscience. We know that because these passages flow from the goodness and righteousness of God, whereas the omniscience “proof-texts” deal with quantity rather than quality. Thus they exaggerate the superficial at the expense of the substantive. No one can impose vulgar duty on God. Such basic biblical teaching shows that the non-biblical term “omniscience” overstates the truth. What is the true doctrine of God’s knowledge? God knows everything knowable that He wants to know. God does not want to know everything! And yes, He knows how many hairs are on your head, but He doesn’t know how many hairs are on the boogeyman’s head, because there is no boogeyman. God can do that which is doable, and He can know that which is knowable. So He knows, or at least He can determine instantly if He wants to know, how many hairs are on your head. And if He wants to lengthen the life of sparrows, God can instantly locate and strengthen them all. There are beings who keep track of endless reams of meaningless data, but God is not a bureaucrat. Does God keep track of every molecule in every roll of toilet paper, to trace its path from tree to the mill, to the store, to your sewer pipe, and back again? Does this interest God? The LORD has a purpose for His knowledge. God created man in His likeness, able to intuitively dismiss infinite piles of data as unimportant and endless possibilities as meaningless. God’s ways are higher than our ways (Isa. 55:9), but they are not lower. He reveals that He has no desire to retain Memorex memories of endless sadism, sodomy, and rape, and He need not keep infinite charts analyzing the base bodily functions of all animals. So while the unbiblical concept of omniscience demeans God, the true doctrine of His knowledge exalts Him in wisdom. God knows everything knowable that He wants to know."

 

[Clete]

Well, if it's not necessarily true, then it's an estimate, call this a guess or not as you wish, in any case, to some degree it must have been speculative. It seems you're saying complete knowledge of A means B, based to some degree on A, is not a guess--but that does not follow, if Judas could have repented, then complete knowledge of Judas' heart does not tell us if he won't, or will.

This is hardly worth responding too but if you say something you have good reason to believe will be the case and act as though you are convinced that it will in fact happen, that does not mean you are speculating. That means that you know what the situation currently is and are wise enough to know that the outcome is likely to be. That's not speculating, that's wisdom.

 

[Clete]

It's important to look at the environment here. Jesus is praying for His disciples and for all of those who would come to believe in Him in the future. In the middle of this Christ states in a prayer to The Father:

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.​

Verse 12 is clearly about the twelve apostles.

We might say that the same idea which applies to the statement "40 days and Nineveh will be destroyed!" would apply here, but there is no interaction with Judas to achieve repentence.

Judas was in the immediate presence of God, hear His teaching every single day. :doh:

Christ is simply stating to the Father that one of the disciples is lost fulfilling the scriptures. Christ isn't warning Judas or stating to Judas 'You will be doomed to destruction!', hoping that Judas will repent and achieve a better outcome. It's an entirely different situation than Nineveh. One which presents a totally bleak outlook for the results of Judas' free acts. This leads to the idea which Muz presented and ends in God actively willing Judas to spend eternity outside of His presence.

If such is Muz's position then I'd like to introduce him to the God of Scripture who wills all to come to repentance, which Judas could easily have done by simply having believed any one of hundreds of Jesus' own teachings concerning Himself.

The only idea that is left is that God simply foreknew those free acts.

He did foreknow them. That is, He foreknew them in the same sense He foreknows that I will get up in the morning and go to work. God knows me and He knows my habits and thus knows what I am going to do tomorrow morning. It's not that I couldn't do otherwise, I could, but it is extremely unlikely and God knows that even more than I do.

Jesus knowing Judas' heart wouldn't reveal future free acts according to open theism would it?

Of course it would! Not in the sense of hard, factual, for sure actions where the person acting has no ability to do otherwise but God isn't stupid and people are very predictable based on passed behavior and the condition of their hearts.

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.)​

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's because you are stupid, Rob.

Do you even know what the term "necessary" means?

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.

God did not foreknow that he (small 'h') would remain unrepentant in the sense you mean. He knew that he wouldn't repent in the sense that He had no reason at all to think he would repent and every reason in the world to think that he wouldn't. In other words, He knew Judas and based on what He knew of Judas, the prediction was an easy one to make.

Is this correct?

Good bye, Rob.

I just deleted a whole paragraph in response to this stupidity.

You very simply are not worth the stress. You don't know how to think and I can no longer tolerate it. There are other things that I could be spending my time doing other than wasting it on a moron who is guaranteed not to get it and to intentionally twist whatever I say into something completely ridiculous.

I'm sorry I even engage you again. I very simply must be a glutton for punishment.

I tell you what. You just forget that I ever posted this or the last several post. Go on believing whatever you want about me and continue misrepresenting what I believe to whomever you wish whenever the opportunity arises.

:wave2:

 

[lee_merrill]

... if you say something you have good reason to believe will be the case and act as though you are convinced that it will in fact happen, that does not mean you are speculating. That means that you know what the situation currently is and are wise enough to know that the outcome is likely to be. That's not speculating, that's wisdom.

"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.

 

[RobE]

Judas was in the immediate presence of God, hear His teaching every single day. :doh:

True. However, when Christ prayed this prayer they would only meet once more. That meeting would occur at the moment of Judas' free act of betrayal which was foretold of before Judas engaged the chief priests to betray.

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.)​

If such is Muz's position then I'd like to introduce him to the God of Scripture who wills all to come to repentance, which Judas could easily have done by simply having believed any one of hundreds of Jesus' own teachings concerning Himself.

Muz's final post was that God witheld grace to Judas to accomplish the purpose of the betrayal and Judas' doom.

He did foreknow them. That is, He foreknew them in the same sense He foreknows that I will get up in the morning and go to work. God knows me and He knows my habits and thus knows what I am going to do tomorrow morning. It's not that I couldn't do otherwise, I could, but it is extremely unlikely and God knows that even more than I do.

Knowing you better than you know yourself might allow God to foreknow all of your actions, where you only foreknow some of them.

Jesus knowing Judas' heart wouldn't reveal future free acts according to open theism would it?

Of course it would! Not in the sense of hard, factual, for sure actions where the person acting has no ability to do otherwise but God isn't stupid and people are very predictable based on passed behavior and the condition of their hearts.

Why wouldn't these be "hard factual, for sure actions" when we consider the provided scripture:

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 see that you read my response as having this scripture coincide with the following part of my response. It was actually in reference to the above.

Clete 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's because you are stupid, Rob.

Do you even know what the term "necessary" means?

I thought this was not a 'stupid' assumption and question at all based upon your responses that God was able to foreknow Judas actions based upon knowing Judas' heart. Yes I know what the term necessary means.

My assumption was based on the following:

Clete replied: Jesus' words were not speculative in the slightest but they were not necessarily true either.​

1. Jesus' words were not speculative at all based upon your blatant statement of that fact.

Your reiterated this was true when you replied to Lee....

This is hardly worth responding too but if you say something you have good reason to believe will be the case and act as though you are convinced that it will in fact happen, that does not mean you are speculating. That means that you know what the situation currently is and are wise enough to know that the outcome is likely to be. That's not speculating, that's wisdom.

2. Your statement, "they were not necessarily true either.", either meant that Jesus spoke an untruth or that the situation was conditional and unnecessary to be true.

I placed this in the response to illustrate why I thought you were rejecting the third item within it:

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

Of course it would! Not in the sense of hard, factual, for sure actions where the person acting has no ability to do otherwise but God isn't stupid and people are very predictable based on passed behavior and the condition of their hearts.

2. God foreknows Judas actions.

God did not foreknow that he (small 'h') would remain unrepentant in the sense you mean. He knew that he wouldn't repent in the sense that He had no reason at all to think he would repent and every reason in the world to think that he wouldn't. In other words, He knew Judas and based on what He knew of Judas, the prediction was an easy one to make.

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

I assumed that you denied premise three. You called me stupid. Do I stupidly think you deny premise 3 above as being true because it states Judas' actions were necessary?

God did not foreknow that he (small 'h') would remain unrepentant in the sense you mean. He knew that he wouldn't repent in the sense that He had no reason at all to think he would repent and every reason in the world to think that he wouldn't. In other words, He knew Judas and based on what He knew of Judas, the prediction was an easy one to make.

Would this work in group psychology as well? I think so. If God were to know every heart in this manner wouldn't He be able to know how and why our thinking processes would develop. Isn't this ultimately causality?

Good bye, Rob.

Goodbye, Clete. I'm sorry I offended you, but I don't think it was a stupid post.

 

[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.

You posted in response to God 'not speculating'. So, I posted in reply to the only other idea which Clete could be talking about. The fact that God foreknew because He didn't 'speculate', and Judas could still do otherwise. It really was the only thing which came to mind if Jesus didn't 'speculate' or 'lie'. Is there another option?

Perhaps, Judas was decreed by God to commit the acts?

I didn't think Clete meant this.

Your reply 'was not worth responding to' and mine was 'stupid'. Should we have suggested that Clete was indeed saying that 'Judas was decreed by God to commit the acts, unfreely'? Are there any other choices available?

Rob

 

[Philetus]

Are there any other choices available?

:sigh:

 

[Yorzhik]

You posted in response to God 'not speculating'. So, I posted in reply to the only other idea which Clete could be talking about. The fact that God foreknew because He didn't 'speculate', and Judas could still do otherwise. It really was the only thing which came to mind if Jesus didn't 'speculate' or 'lie'. Is there another option?

Perhaps, Judas was decreed by God to commit the acts?

I didn't think Clete meant this.

Your reply 'was not worth responding to' and mine was 'stupid'. Should we have suggested that Clete was indeed saying that 'Judas was decreed by God to commit the acts, unfreely'? Are there any other choices available?

Rob

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.