ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Nang
TOL Subscriber
:jump:
Yes!
Eventually it might happen that no one wants to discuss Open Theism!
Would not that be heaven on earth? :cloud9:
Nang
Well, heaven on earth, sure, but it would be hell for you when you get to heaven and find out just how angry God is with you attributing Him with evil.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It never fails to amaze me, how people who seem anxious to discuss serious theology, exhibit lack of discernment and willingly ignore the distinctions between the attributes (essentials which make up the nature and being) of God, and the sovereign rule of God.
It is almost impossible to have decent interaction with them . . .
Nang
It is almost impossible to have decent interaction with them . . .
Nang
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
John 17:12 (ESV):
WhilexxIxxxwasxxwithxthemxxIxxxxxkeptxxxxthemxxxinxyourxxxxxname,
hotexx->x ēmēnxmetxautōnxegō xetērounxzautousxenxsouxtōxonomati
Whichzyouzhavezzzgivenzzzzmezzz.zzzIzzhavezzguardedzzthemzandzznot
zzhōzzzz->zzz->zzdedōkaszmoizzkaizz->zz->zzzephylaxazzzz.zzzkaizzoudeis
onezofzthemzzzhaszbeenzzzlostzzzzxxexceptzzzzthezsonzzzofzzzdestruction,zxthatz
<-zzexzautōnzzx->zzz->zzxapōletozzzeizzzmēzzzhozhuioszz->zzztēszapōleiaszxhina
thezScripturezmightzbezzfulfilled.
hēzzzgraphēzzz->zzz->zzplērōthē
The phrase "that the Scripture might be fulfilled" is the focal point.
The Greek conjunction, hina, combined with the verb, plērōthē (finite, third person, singular, aorist, subjunctive, passive), is a frequently used formula of quotation implying that something took place, but not in order that a prophecy might be fulfilled, but so that it was fulfilled. And not in order to make the event correspond to the prophecy, but the fact that the event did correspond to the prophesy.
See other examples, as in, Matthew 1:22; Matthew 2:15; Matthew 21:4; Matthew 26:56; John 15:25. With a past tense implied (Mark 14:49; John 13:18).
Lon
Well-known member
Sorry I should have just jumped to it. You, I believe, have been discussing with both Muz and Rob about God hardening the hearts of His enemies.
For me it makes sense from a Calvinist perspective. I understand Arminianism. But OV denies God knows man's will (qualified of course). How does God discern who His enemies are if they may yet repent? Is it simply too late for them once God decides? I'm just trying to understand how OV handles the thoughts here.
I tend to pick and choose my OV battles, and when I ask in such a way, I may bring it up down the road, but right now I just want to know the thought process and reasoning.
RobE
New member
Just to refresh your memory:
If you look at the posts over the last couple of days you'll see that Muz and Clete have both declared that God manipulates men towards evil, and that God encourages men to do evil acts, etc., etc., etc.....
You are not able to have your cake and eat it too, so to say. Either what Nang, Muz, and Clete says is true or false. If true, then all of them will agree that God did no evil and that evil does not reside within His being.
What makes your idea of 'God being attributed with evil' only apply towards Nang's position --- when that position is essentially the same as your friends?
I don't disagree with Nang's position, or with God manipulating men as these ideas are scripturally sound. My objection came to God manipulating Judas' towards reprobation(not an evil act, but an undesirable outcome) in Muz's arguments.
Stand by your words and answer --- what in Nang's and Clete's positions attribute evil to Our Lord?
RobE
New member
Thanks AMR!
A couple of questions:
1) Is there anything here which might suggest Judas' forthcoming reprobation is a conditional situation?
2) Is there anything here which might suggest Christ did not know with a certainty?
3) Could you provide the definitions for these words?
A. apōleto
B. tēs apōleias
4) Does this scripture prove Divine Foreknowledge is exhaustive and definite in regards to future free will actions and outcome?
5) Does this scripture prove Divine Foreknowledge was exhaustive and definite in regards to past foreknowledge of a future free will action?
Where do we go from here?
RobE
New member
Clete,
I hope you never intend on accusing me of playing word games again when your definition of.....
Foreknow = to know beforehand sometimes
know = speculate based on incomplete intelligence
won't = can't
will = can
know = speculate based on incomplete intelligence
won't = can't
will = can
Rob said:
What's Nang's saying? Oh yea, Bah!
lee_merrill
New member
Not to speak for AMR, but about a couple of points...
Blessings,
Lee
Yes, actually, "fulfilled" is subjunctive, which can indicate a possibility, but in NT usage it often is to be still considered a certainty, even though the grammar is that of possibility, I think that is the case here.
No, I would say the possibility-usage here does not mean it was possible Scripture would not be fulfilled, this may be like discreet language, along the lines of a euphemism.
Blessings,
Lee
Philetus
New member
:sigh:
You misread and misrepresent everybody, RobE. You continually frustrate this discussion beyond comprehension. Maybe Judas was just stupid and God used his stupidity because it was available to Him and you were born 2000 years to late. Enjoy yourself at TOL because it is obvious that you won't shut up until you are the only one left here.
Philetus
RobE
New member
Clete said:
Muz said:
Clete said:
Are these statement enough to prove my statement valid or must I retrieve more?
What did I mis-represent? What did I mis-read?
Frankly, my patience is thin at the moment; so exactly what is your complaint? Do you have a valid argument or are you simply wasting space here? I'm listening.
themuzicman
Well-known member
themuzicman
Well-known member
I actually click on the little green guy, to go "add X to buddy list" and then on the left side, there is a link for the buddy/ignore list, and I add them there.
Muz
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Verses 11-12 are instructive in that they contain the great doctrines of radical depravity, election, definite atonement, irresistible grace, and God's perseverance with His saints.
John 17:11 And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one.
John 17:12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled.
Earlier we find Christ praying for Himself and His glorification (v. 1, 5). Now He turns to others and intercedes for them. This prayer is for their safekeeping, and His remaining petitions are for their sanctification (v. 17), unity (vs. 20-21), and eventual presence with Him in heaven (v. 24).
Note that in the prayer apart from God's perseverance, the disciples would surely be lost. This is why Christ mentions Judas. It is not the case that Judas was an exception to God's perseverance with His saints, as though, for the sake of prophecy, God consented to abandon Judas. That is not the case, for Judas was not one of Christ's originally. We see this said elsewhere, and even this passage implies it. The phrase "son of destruction" is in the nominative case, rather than the genitive, which sets off from the words "of them" which precede it. The true meaning is: "I have lost none of them whom you have given me, none at all. But the son of destruction is lost, as has been prophesied in Scripture." The reference is to Psalm 41:9. Lastly, the situation with Judas does not teach that the saved can be lost. It teaches what would inevitably happen if God did not regenerate the person and then keep in His care the one so regenerated.
As noted above, Judas was reprobate from the beginning. He was never one of God's elect. There is no condition on this expressed in the verse.
No. In fact, we see from Christ's prayers that it was clear who was to betray Him and it was definite "not one of them has been lost except...". The Greek shows no tentativeness in Christ's assertion that He knew one was lost.
apōleto: appears 90 times in the NT, to destroy, to kill (Matthew 2:13); to bring to nought, make void (1 Corinthians 1:19); to lose, be deprived of (Matthew 10:42); to be destroyed, perish (Matthew 9:17); to be put to death, to die (Matthew 26:52). In John 17:12, cf. 10:28, the use signifies the destruction handed out in divine judgment. "None of them has perished except the son of destruction. The "perishing" destiny is in contrast to John 3:16, "shall not perish but have eternal life".
tēs apōleias: ignoring the article, tēs, apōleias appears 18 times in the NT, consumption, destruction; waste, profusion (Matthew 26:8; Mark 14:4); destruction, state of being destroyed (Acts 25:6); eternal ruin, perdition (Matthew 7:13; Acts 8:20). In John 17:12, it refers to the destruction one experiences as a result of divine wrath and is used much in the same sense as in Romans 9:22.
I am not so certain this is the linchpin verse for foreknowledge. The verse is one of many, when looked at as a whole, clearly demonstrates the foreknowledge of God. As I noted above, the verse is more instructive about the doctrines of radical depravity, election, definite atonement, irresistible grace, and God's perseverance with His saints. Nevertheless, the implied reference to Psalm 41:9 in Christ's prayer makes it clear that He foreknew what was to happen to Him and through whom it was to happen.
I don't know what "past foreknowledge of a future free will action" means. Can you elaborate?
Click the blinking words in my sig below. Think and pray on the content at the linked site.
RobE
New member
Thanks for taking the time and effort for such a thorough explanation. It won't go unwasted. I'll refer to it often. I'm sure others will benefit as well since we just had a week of discovering that knowing isn't always knowing (if your an open theist). :noway:
I simply meant that the prophecy was fulfilled just as foretold. Christ made specific mention of prophecy fulfillment. I asked this so that we might see that Christ was not 'illustrating' current conditions with prior scripture, but was indeed indicating that this was foretold of specifically, definitively, and exhaustively before Judas lived.
How many times must I read it? I've already said I agree with your position, almost. I see no conflict with the exception of the application of grace.
I find infralapsarianism to be similar to the position of the Thomist. Did you notice how Clete found knowing beforehand might not, in one sense, be knowing beforehand?
I, in the same frame of mind, find Calvinism might not, in one sense, be Calvinism.:chuckle: In other words, I find a wide chasm between Supra and infra when there is really only a thin line between.
If I were to become a Calvinist I would be a SupraLapsarian. Just as open theism's logic, which it borrowed from Calvin; and it's insanity, which it borrowed from Whitehead: cut the knot of compatibalism, I would take the simple route and keep only the sane logic of their argument. And become a Supra!
As you know, arguing compatibalism isn't an easy proposition. Muz could do it, but I don't think any of the others could. I'm actually quite tired of arguing it myself. I see it as a scripturally valid, but the majority of folks here seem simply incapable of discernment. Laziness is the problem I'm sure.
The Thomists and Molinists have the ideas which are the most appealing to me. I think the Infras have a lot in common with them.
On the other hand, open theism is far removed from any of these ideas. God's evolution, limited intelligence, thwarted will, ursurped decrees, and the like are not for me! Maybe if I'd lived in ancient Greece and never heard of Jesus Christ I might be tempted, but not in my present state of mind.
Anyway, I will pray about it; even though, I already agree with the vast majority of your positions. I admire those who take a stand, whether Nang or Clete, right or wrong respectively.
I simply meant that the prophecy was fulfilled just as foretold. Christ made specific mention of prophecy fulfillment. I asked this so that we might see that Christ was not 'illustrating' current conditions with prior scripture, but was indeed indicating that this was foretold of specifically, definitively, and exhaustively before Judas lived.
Click the blinking words in my sig below. Think and pray on the content at the linked site.
How many times must I read it? I've already said I agree with your position, almost. I see no conflict with the exception of the application of grace.
I find infralapsarianism to be similar to the position of the Thomist. Did you notice how Clete found knowing beforehand might not, in one sense, be knowing beforehand?
I, in the same frame of mind, find Calvinism might not, in one sense, be Calvinism.:chuckle: In other words, I find a wide chasm between Supra and infra when there is really only a thin line between.
If I were to become a Calvinist I would be a SupraLapsarian. Just as open theism's logic, which it borrowed from Calvin; and it's insanity, which it borrowed from Whitehead: cut the knot of compatibalism, I would take the simple route and keep only the sane logic of their argument. And become a Supra!
As you know, arguing compatibalism isn't an easy proposition. Muz could do it, but I don't think any of the others could. I'm actually quite tired of arguing it myself. I see it as a scripturally valid, but the majority of folks here seem simply incapable of discernment. Laziness is the problem I'm sure.
The Thomists and Molinists have the ideas which are the most appealing to me. I think the Infras have a lot in common with them.
On the other hand, open theism is far removed from any of these ideas. God's evolution, limited intelligence, thwarted will, ursurped decrees, and the like are not for me! Maybe if I'd lived in ancient Greece and never heard of Jesus Christ I might be tempted, but not in my present state of mind.
Anyway, I will pray about it; even though, I already agree with the vast majority of your positions. I admire those who take a stand, whether Nang or Clete, right or wrong respectively.
Philetus
New member
Got 'er done. What a marvelous little button. Thanks Muz.
God is not as concerned with the carrying out of an evil action as He is with the conceving of the evil action. When does conceiving of the evil action take place? when it is decreed, or when the decree is carried out?
- Status