ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Why am I doing this?!!!
Someone please stop me! :bang:
Your argument presumed that if something Jesus said was not necessary then it must have been speculative. That tells me that you either don't know what necessary means or you don't know what it means to speculate.
Why is it that when I discuss things like this with you that I get the feeling that I'm talking to a typical third grade boy who hasn't yet been taught how to string two coherent thoughts together? Am I really speaking in some sort of code here? Why must I continually repeat myself over and over and over and over again, saying the same old things in response to the same old tired arguments that you've made practically since the day you showed up here? Don't you ever get tired of have the exact same conversation with the exact same people making the exact same arguments with the exact same results? I swear its like being stuck in the Twilight Zone or someone's version of Hell!
If God foreknows every action you will ever take, the logical conclusion is that you do not have any choice in what you do and God would therefore be unjust for either rewarding or punishing those actions. You simply cannot have it both ways. God is either just or He has exhaustive divine foreknowledge - not both.
Notice the qualitative vs quantitative nature of that dichotomy. How long do you suppose it will be before you realize that this debate isn't about how many proof-texts we can throw around? When will you realize that I've never once denied that your proof-texts mean exactly what they say? Aren't you even the slightest bit interested to know why this conversation never proceeds any further than basically the point where we are right now? :nono:
If you could just refrain from asking insipid/asinine questions like the last one at the end of your previous post when you asked "Is this correct?" just out of the clear blue sky, you and I might actually be able to get along well enough to continue these conversation for more than the average one or two iterations.
Use your brain and don't just simply start typing up the first thought that pops into your head. Think it through first! Ask yourself, what is Clete likely to say in response to this point if I were to make it. Ask youself, is this question really going to add something substantive to the conversation and move it forward in an interesting and engaging way? Would other people be interested in seeing how Clete will respond to this point? Have I asked this exact same question fewer than 4 million times in the past? Do I have any reason to think that I might get a different response this time than last and if not, why the Hell am I considering asking it again?
Questions like that will go a long way toward keeping the conversation interesting for all involved and will keep you from looking like a complete retard.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Someone please stop me! :bang:
Foretold, not foreknown. At least, not foreknown in the sense that you mean, where Judas would be unable to repent.
Muz is wrong (assuming that he actually said this). Judas could have repented or else his punishment for the betrayal was unjust - period.
Yeah! No kidding! But not in the sense that you mean. God knows that I will go home this afternoon in my red S10 pickup, just as I do. But that doesn't mean that I couldn't call a cab if I decided I wanted to for some reason. It merely means that God knows me and knows my habits and has no reason to think that I would do anything differently today than I ever have before. It was the same with Judas. God knew Judas and knew the motivations of his heart and had no reason to think that he would act differently than he had up to that point. But that DOES NOT mean he couldn't have acted differently. Judas could have astonished Christ with a display of faith just as the Roman centurion did.
Because the provided Scripture doesn't say that they were "hard factual, for sure actions", thats why! And in addition to that, the Bible does say that these actions were punished and so if Judas could not have done otherwise, that punishment was unjust.
I don't think you do know what it means, Rob! Either that or you are incapable of following a really simple linear conversation.
Your argument presumed that if something Jesus said was not necessary then it must have been speculative. That tells me that you either don't know what necessary means or you don't know what it means to speculate.
I deny premise two, you blithering idiot!
Why is it that when I discuss things like this with you that I get the feeling that I'm talking to a typical third grade boy who hasn't yet been taught how to string two coherent thoughts together? Am I really speaking in some sort of code here? Why must I continually repeat myself over and over and over and over again, saying the same old things in response to the same old tired arguments that you've made practically since the day you showed up here? Don't you ever get tired of have the exact same conversation with the exact same people making the exact same arguments with the exact same results? I swear its like being stuck in the Twilight Zone or someone's version of Hell!
Yeah, it sure is, Rob, for what the 9000th time.
If God foreknows every action you will ever take, the logical conclusion is that you do not have any choice in what you do and God would therefore be unjust for either rewarding or punishing those actions. You simply cannot have it both ways. God is either just or He has exhaustive divine foreknowledge - not both.
Notice the qualitative vs quantitative nature of that dichotomy. How long do you suppose it will be before you realize that this debate isn't about how many proof-texts we can throw around? When will you realize that I've never once denied that your proof-texts mean exactly what they say? Aren't you even the slightest bit interested to know why this conversation never proceeds any further than basically the point where we are right now? :nono:
I didn't say the whole post was stupid. Had it been I wouldn't have responded at all.
If you could just refrain from asking insipid/asinine questions like the last one at the end of your previous post when you asked "Is this correct?" just out of the clear blue sky, you and I might actually be able to get along well enough to continue these conversation for more than the average one or two iterations.
Use your brain and don't just simply start typing up the first thought that pops into your head. Think it through first! Ask yourself, what is Clete likely to say in response to this point if I were to make it. Ask youself, is this question really going to add something substantive to the conversation and move it forward in an interesting and engaging way? Would other people be interested in seeing how Clete will respond to this point? Have I asked this exact same question fewer than 4 million times in the past? Do I have any reason to think that I might get a different response this time than last and if not, why the Hell am I considering asking it again?
Questions like that will go a long way toward keeping the conversation interesting for all involved and will keep you from looking like a complete retard.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Lon is right, I don't agree.
What Jesus was doing in no way fits the definition of the word speculate.
Speculate
Main Entry: spec·u·late
Pronunciation: \ˈspe-kyə-ˌlāt\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): spec·u·lat·ed; spec·u·lat·ing
Etymology: Latin speculatus, past participle of speculari to spy out, examine, from specula lookout post, from specere to look, look at — more at spy
Date: 1599
intransitive verb
1 a: to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuation
stransitive verb
1: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize 2: to be curious or doubtful about : wonder <speculates whether it will rain all vacation>
Pronunciation: \ˈspe-kyə-ˌlāt\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): spec·u·lat·ed; spec·u·lat·ing
Etymology: Latin speculatus, past participle of speculari to spy out, examine, from specula lookout post, from specere to look, look at — more at spy
Date: 1599
intransitive verb
1 a: to meditate on or ponder a subject : reflect b: to review something idly or casually and often inconclusively2: to assume a business risk in hope of gain; especially : to buy or sell in expectation of profiting from market fluctuation
stransitive verb
1: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence : theorize 2: to be curious or doubtful about : wonder <speculates whether it will rain all vacation>
themuzicman
Well-known member
Clete said:
Judas was punished for the same things that every unbeliever is condemned for: Sin. We all were under condemnation for it. God provided a way out for those who believe, but Judas did not.
I suppose it is possible (given the nature of the prophecy cited) that Judas could have been drawn, if he had not hanged himself, but then the author wouldn't have applied that prophecy in that way.
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
So Judas betrayed Christ because of his unbelief, and was punished for his sin?
I thought you denied unbelief as sin?
Inconsistency, Muz, inconsistency . . .
What author? God is the Author of the prophecies in all of Holy Scripture.
Nang
themuzicman
Well-known member
What a relief. I can finally have an intelligent discussion on this subject.
I've tried to argue the "gradients of guess" with SV'ers and their capacity to understand the concept is practically non-existent. So I've changed to a more relaxed approach. If an SV'er says "God is guessing" I answer in the affirmative. Or if they say God predicts, or God estimates, or weighs probabilities, or God assumes, or figures, or estimates or supposes or postulates or wonders... all "yes".
Certainly, by the definition given, "to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence", God would never do. But just try and explain that rationally to someone like Rob! I don't even think Lee would be able to talk about that with any kind of sense. In absolute terms, certainly God would only guess to the extent that the evidence warrents. And God has lots more evidence than we do. And there are some things that God doesn't guess about because of His complete capability to bring about what He plans.
So when you talk about getting up for work tomorrow, you aren't guessing you'll get up for work, but you know it with certainty based on the evidence. And in the same way God doesn't guess either, in this way, for a greater number of things based on the vast amount of information He has at the present time. However, we also don't know exhaustively that you will get up for work tomorrow, simply because, well, the world might end tonight. So if the SV'ers want to call it a guess, I'll grant them that - I think they expose themselves as wrong in more efficient ways. And beyond that, there does come a point where we guess the future, and so does God (although with God it must be further into the future) because the evidence we have is less about a more future time. We may even go as far as making a 'wild guess'. Even God could do that without impugning His righteousness. I only argue about gradients of guessing when SV'ers want to say that all guessing is wild, and no matter how intelligent an intelligent guess is, it is speculation without evidence.
lee_merrill
New member
Then why would Jesus say "truly, truly," or "I tell you the truth," about Peter's denial when he knew it might not be true?
Blessings,
Lee
RobE
New member
Good. It's about time someone around here is able!
Thanks. This has always been my position. God never takes it to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence.
All true. I've never said otherwise.
Completely true. Based upon the known evidence Clete knows he'll get up tommorrow.
Again true, however God would know if the world might end tonight because that is within His own power.
Thanks for the benefit of the doubt.
You begin to lose ground here..."and so does God", but make up for it here "(although with God it must be further into the future) ". You're right that the further we look into the future the more speculative our predictions become. How might this be said of God, though. Is God a man that His knowledge is incomplete right now? The reason our knowledge of the future becomes more unreliable is because our knowledge of the present is incomplete. The better our intelligence about current conditions, the more accurate we are able to foreknow, and the further our predictions(based on the knowledge) will remain accurate.
Do you see how perfect present knowledge would indeed provide exhaustive definite foreknowledge through the idea you've presented? (Try leaving aside the idea that EDF and foreknowledge are contradictory in your view for a minute).
Your idea is true from my perspective which is one of the reasons I agreed that Clete was saying that Jesus didn't speculate.....
....about Judas being 'doomed to destruction'. The problem is that we must discover why our foreknowledge fails. It seems that it's because our present knowledge is incomplete.
RobE
New member
I would, but my trying to stop you would simply make you think continuing was the right thing to do.
I've made it quite clear that Judas was completely able to repent until his death.
I agree, but Muz ran out of arguments. Muz believes grace is always effecacious, not just sufficient. Muz is a determinist who is determined to be otherwise.
Have you ever asked yourself why people act against their own natures? Are you able to think of a time someone did so without outside influence?
I agree as stated and so would the compatibalist Calvinists. AMR's idea of free will is that one acts within one's own nature. It's in your nature to 'go home this afternoon in your red S10 pickup', so that's what you will do. Just because it's in your nature doesn't in any way mean that you won't for some reason call a cab, other than it's against your nature.
Judas wouldn't act against his own nature any more than you would call the cab. It just so happens that the Roman centurion had faith within his nature which he acted on just as you did when you drove your truck home.
Yes it does! Christ wasn't speculating. He didn't say "Yet one of you" might "be a devil!". Christ said this based upon perfect knowledge of Judas' nature just as you've agreed. It doesn't mean that Judas couldn't do otherwise, it just meant that Judas wouldn't do otherwise according to his nature.
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.)
Well, it tells me that you don't know my argument so I'll post it below:
Rob said:
The argument you posted this in response to is below:
Actually, this is untrue:
Rob said:
Clete said:
The above statement: 2. God foreknows Judas actions., and your statement "He did foreknow them." are synonymous as long as the definition of foreknowledge is to know beforehand. We both agree to this. #1 above stands or falls on the definition of foreknowledge as well. That only leaves #3 as a point of contention. I believe we both agree it is false because it states "3. Therefore, Judas' actions will necessarily happen." that Judas' actions are necessary when they aren't necessary at all.
I know what you mean. I realize my written skills are far from sufficient. That's probably most of the problem. We are in agreement over the definition of foreknowledge, that Jesus foreknew Judas' actions, that Judas' was free to repent; and still we argue even while we agree.
This is probably why I've rarely argued on a scriptural basis. The problem exists because foreknowledge has one definition, it isn't complicated, it's definite thus rejecting speculation, and it's exhaustive. 'To know something in advance' leaves very little room for anything else.
I already concluded that you accept the proof-texts as literal. That's why I responded the way I did when Lee argued the definition of speculative.
The problem wasn't that you said the post was stupid. You said I was stupid which didn't address the post at all. The post just inherited the stupidity. Stupid does as stupid is.
Clete said:
ok.
Unfortunately I spend much too long thinking these things through.
Thanks for the advice. I'll try to be more considerate in the future.
Rob,
Respond to the following single point...
I know (one might say that I foreknow) that I will go to work in the morning.
From my use of the term "know" it is not necessary that I will go to work in the morning.
I might have a heart attack in my sleep. The rapture might accure at 2:00 in the morning. My wife might get sick and need for me to take her to the hospital, or any number of other unforeseen possibilities might occur, including the possibility that while unlikely, I might decide to call in sick and play hooky for a day, that it to say, I might repent from going to work in the morning, although I most likely will not. So much so, in fact, that it is quite accurate and most practical to say simply that I know that I will go to work tomorrow.
Do you still think we are anywhere close to agreeing on the subject of foreknowledge?
In fact, you seem so incapable of following me on this that I feel obligated to clarify one major point.
Jesus did not foreknow that Judas would betray Him. I mean, of course, that He did foreknow that he would but just not in the sense that you seem bent on using the term "foreknow". Jesus foreknew what Judas would do because he knew Judas' heart and because He, being God, was most likely manipulating His enemy in order to fulfill the Scripture (i.e. Jesus was not merely speculating). But that does not mean that Judas' actions were a logically necessary. Judas could have repented and surprised the daylights out of Jesus! Thus Jesus did not foreknow his actions in the sense you are using the term. There are many things that God does foreknow in that sense but Judas' actions were not among them.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Respond to the following single point...
I know (one might say that I foreknow) that I will go to work in the morning.
From my use of the term "know" it is not necessary that I will go to work in the morning.
I might have a heart attack in my sleep. The rapture might accure at 2:00 in the morning. My wife might get sick and need for me to take her to the hospital, or any number of other unforeseen possibilities might occur, including the possibility that while unlikely, I might decide to call in sick and play hooky for a day, that it to say, I might repent from going to work in the morning, although I most likely will not. So much so, in fact, that it is quite accurate and most practical to say simply that I know that I will go to work tomorrow.
Do you still think we are anywhere close to agreeing on the subject of foreknowledge?
In fact, you seem so incapable of following me on this that I feel obligated to clarify one major point.
Jesus did not foreknow that Judas would betray Him. I mean, of course, that He did foreknow that he would but just not in the sense that you seem bent on using the term "foreknow". Jesus foreknew what Judas would do because he knew Judas' heart and because He, being God, was most likely manipulating His enemy in order to fulfill the Scripture (i.e. Jesus was not merely speculating). But that does not mean that Judas' actions were a logically necessary. Judas could have repented and surprised the daylights out of Jesus! Thus Jesus did not foreknow his actions in the sense you are using the term. There are many things that God does foreknow in that sense but Judas' actions were not among them.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Not every unbeliever will receive the same punishment and Judas' actions against Christ were themselves clearly condemned. Those actions, if Judas could not have done otherwise, were not immoral and thus any condemnation of them would be fundamentally unjust.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
What contradiction and nonsense and evil darkness you spew into the world via the internet and via TOL . . .you are saying that the crucifixion of Christ was not ordained by God, for the purpose of saving the people of God.
You are claiming the betrayal and murder of Christ was a matter of chance and human choices apart from the sovereign will of God and the volitional actions of the Son.
Your nonsense in the name of "religion" robs the cross work of Jesus Christ of all meaning and significance, by placing the event in the hands of mortal sinners . . .strictly according to chance ("free will"), rather than Sovereign and Godly decree.
You do not proclaim anything close to the true gospel message at all, but only voice the lies dictated to you by your father, the devil.
Nang
Quite right! I agree completely!
It really sucks that we have to resort to such tactics in order to have intelligible conversations with those who disagree with our position on these issues. I don't understand why Settled View believers seem universally incapable of communicating these concepts without so much needless confusion! It's like they just don't know how to think!
This is easily the most frustrating thing for me on TOL. I can tolerate a stupid atheist, I can tolerate an inane Buddhist and even the pedantic agnostic but these people like Nang, and Rob and even people that go way back like Z Man profess to be followers of Christ and they are just embarrassing and it's just almost more than I can stand sometimes!
Resting in Him,
Clete
You are a lunatic, Nang!
You are so intensely stupid that I can't even understand how you can feed yourself without joking to death.
I've never known anyone so ridiculously idiotic in my entire life. - I'm not kidding!
If so, your unjust bully of a god predestined it. So go talk with him about it and leave me alone.
Resting in Him,
Clete
:rotfl: This one almost made me spit my beer on the screen!
themuzicman
Well-known member
I think the real question is this: At what point were all the possible futures for Judas to include betrayal? Clearly Judas' own decisions brought him to that point, and I think they brought him to that point fairly early on in his discipleship, if not before. It was still his decision to make, and he made it. The execution of what Judas decided just wasn't seen until Jesus told him to go and do it quickly.
Muz
Philetus
New member
:thumb:
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.)
He MEANT Judas … John was obviously writing with hindsight.
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.
Up until the point that Jesus released Judas to finish the nasty work of betrayal he had been protected from the evil one by Jesus. No longer protected … he was lost to his own destruction and carried out what he had already been laying the plans to do. Judas even tried to 'repent' by giving the money back and stopping the consequences of his actions ... to late for him.
You did a nice job, Muz, of showing the futility of trying to make prophecy about Judas the center piece of this scenario.
Philetus
Philetus
New member
100%:thumb:
Acts 19: 40 As it is, we are in danger of being charged with rioting because of today's events. In that case we would not be able to account for this commotion, since there is no reason for it." 41 After he had said this, he dismissed the assembly.
Acts 28:25 They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet: 26 "'Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving." 27 For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'
Seems history repeats itself repeats itself repeats itself. Somebody has said, "Never underestimate the power of preconceived theologies."
- Status