ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
themuzicman
Well-known member
Does anyone read John 6:44, anymore?
Muz
Muz
Nang
TOL Subscriber
There is more to the Bible than John 6:44, Michael. Important passages like Isaiah 6:9&10 and the several times that revelation is quoted in the N.T. Did you ever look into that Scripture like I asked?
Nang
lee_merrill
New member
So then there is reprobation, yes, I agree. Now how would you explain how God can know a remnant will be saved? Isn't repentance dependent on human choice, according to the Open View?
For some number of people being saved is part of "his sentence on earth," as is the fact that it will be only a remnant, and then after a time, "all Israel."
Blessings,
Lee
Last edited:
RobE
New member
Hey. I haven't been around for a week.
First: God's Natural Essential Knowledge is of what could be, would be, and will be. Everything, including free acts, are a result of God's decrees.
Just as you noted above, all knowledge is essential to God which includes feasible and actual worlds. 'Feasible' and 'actual' are just subsets of 'natural'.
AMR said:
I respond that the objection is only possibly valid if God is....
1. Temporal
The 'grounding objection' overlooks the idea that God exists both before and after the event. The origin of the foreknowledge might possibly be the event itself.AMR said:
The counterfactuals are grounded in God's knowledge of His own acts --- specifically Man's created nature. And again, ALL events occur simultaneously within God, but it's considerably harder to argue the logic of those events in an atemporal fashion. In other words, God decreed and foreknew simultaneously. Was there a time when God didn't know that He would do either?
2. Not the creator of man's nature
AMR said:
This is the same grounds which Muz argues. You're saying "How does God know the actions of an entity which doesn't exist?" Just as you answer, I submit that man isn't that hard to figure out. That God's determination of outcomes was based upon His own act of creation. I would also submit that it is possible to know about things which don't exist. Do you know of an argument which shows it is impossible to do so?
Cause -----> Effect. Creation ------> Judgement. All God needed to know was Adam's personality and Adam's natural environment. Both of which He created puposefully.
Rob
p.s. We should note which group Molina developed this system to oppose.
RobE
New member
Well you shouldn't thank AMR quite yet. If there is a flaw between the two motifs then it effects your position as well. You might not realize it, but I argue for your position.
I would like to know your take on Muz's assertion that Judas was a victim of positive reprobation(John 6:44). Will you become a bi-polar(or is it schizophrenic?) Supralapsarian as well? Bluntly put --- Was sufficient grace purposefully witheld from Judas Iscariot by God?
RobE
New member
Not really Philetus. You continually confuse 'knowledge' and 'action'. Plans denote knowledge. Decree denotes action. When we say 'carry out His plans' we're talking about what God does, not what God knows. God is unable to know that which is unknowable so your statement "If God can make just one more{plan}" is false, because you already admit that God knows all that is knowable.
No you don't. You believe God has a beginning and doesn't know if there is an end. Process thought is unable to fathom eternity. Supernatural evolution and natural evolution are the same concept.
Why not? Are some of God's plans more perfect than others?
Why would contingencies mar perfection?
We've already agreed that God is unable to know that which is unknowable. So what would those 'new plans' be based upon. I'm sure you don't think that God is going to discover 'new knowledge' since that means there was something 'knowable' which God didn't know to begin with. That would be contradictory to the statement, "God knows all that is knowable.".
Philetus
New member
Isaiah 6:11 Then I said, “Lord, how long?”
RobE
New member
Your original statement requires the following two answers. Even by your own ideas God carries out or coerces His own decrees. The term: "Decreetive will." above necessitates that the action is unfree.
Yes.
No.
If we were to re-write the scenario in the correct form: "God's permissive will."...
He uses His knowledge of His permissive will and tells you if you will have your palms up or down in 10 seconds. Will you have your palms the way God says? Could you put your palms the other way if you so chose?
....then the answers would be:
Yes.
Yes.
It's your choice and God's will is to allow it.
Lon
Well-known member
"What?"Well, duh. Everything I say presumes God does not have EDF, Lon. Did you forget who you were talking to?
Infinite God does not suffer from EDF but, some finite creatures do suffer from ADD.
Yes and no. I have a vivid imagination and what I dream up is very entertaining and exists in my mind. I think you are asking one of those difficult questions that are impossible to answer. How could we answer negatively or in the affirmative? I am not infinite so my answer is speculative at best. I hope you see your negative answer the same. If not, you aren't thinking deeply enough about your question.
You are trying to analyze the answer to a very complex question. I do not see the cut and dry version as starkly. There are many factors you are not considering. How can we answer how God thinks? I caution again here.
I'd not disagree with this.
Sometimes I think about it. Our continuing discussions would lead right back to traditional stances and I'd lead the way
OV would be merely what it has always been, questions from traditional theists to discuss.But it goes back to your "Was God resting?" question. What was God doing in eternity past?
I do not believe you grasp the perplexity of an infinite past yet. Imagine billions of histories already played out in succession, multiply by billions a billion times and it isn't even a comparative second to eternity past where there is never a beginning. If God even planned just ten things, you'll still still have infinite plans when you multiply by infinity. They can never stop. I'm not altogether sure why this is hanging you up. You should be conceding rather quickly and I apologize for my weak explanations and analogy of something that should be starkly clear to you.
The Father impartially loves and draws all men to Himself. He convinces and convicts all men with truth. The same sun can harden clay or melt wax, so the human heart and responsiveness to the work of the Spirit does affect outcomes. God's drawing/wooing/influence is not causative or coercive. Judas initially started out good and was chosen as an apostle. He became bad and a son of perdition as he drifted from Christ. The Spirit strived with him for a time, but at some point, his continual rejection of the Spirit and openness to the influence of Satan tipped the balances. When one rejects light and truth, grieves and quenches the Spirit, the conscience/mind/heart may become dull and the Spirit ceases his work (further light will only bring more condemnation if rejected) and a person is turned over to their sin. God is not mocked and His patience may move from mercy to justice if the person continuously or defiantly loves darkness and refuses to come to the light.
RobE
New member
Good. This is the same as Molina's position. Molina's idea of 'sufficient' grace vs. 'effecacious' grace was revolutionary in its support of free will theism. This idea of resistable grace is rejected by Calvinists and Thomists. Muz is at least a 1 point Calvinist for Muz believes grace is irresistable.
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.
Godrulz said:
"He convinces and convicts all men with truth."
In my opinion, sufficient grace is defined by your statement above. The law is sufficient grace and it was given to all mankind in their hearts, minds, and on paper.
God provided man with enough reason to understand this grace and 'hear' its call; as well as, enough strength to refuse to 'hear' its call. The first results in a man calling for Our Lord's aid, and the second in a man drowning in his own self-approval.
So the law which is insufficient to save, is extremely efficient in convicting:
Romans 7:7What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do not covet." 8But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire. For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death.
This law(or truth) teaches us to distinguish between 'good' and 'evil' and actually provides us with the choice which is necessary for grace to become effecacious. Without this grace of law there would be no choice to make!
"Repent!," is the message of this grace. Was Judas Iscariot able to repent until the time of his death? I say yes.
If I'm correct then how are Jesus words of Judas' doom and destruction true ---unless through foreknowledge?
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.
Evoken
New member
A small nitpick. Sufficient and efficacious grace is not something exclusive to Molinism, it is also accepted by Thomists. The main difference is that Molinists believe that efficacious grace derives it's efficacy from our consent whereas Thomist believe that efficacious grace is efficacious in itself. Also, Thomists do accept the fact that sufficient grace can be resisted and also that efficacious grace while it is not resisted does not eliminates free will. Free will under the influence of efficacious grace retains the possibility of resisting the grace, but it is simply never actualized. This is the same manner in which the saints in heaven retain their free will while enjoying the beatific vision of God. They have attained the good they desire by nature and having done so they do not desire to move away from it, but the possibility of doing so remains in their faculties.
Evo
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I will weigh in with my denial that there are different versions of grace.
There is one remedy for sin, and that is the efficacious grace of God, which is irresistible, due to the fact it is bestowed according to the will and eternal decrees of God.
Grace is not a commodity made available to all men. Grace is the means by which the sons of God are brought into union with their Savior, Jesus Christ. Thus, grace is particular to them alone, and saves all those elect in Christ without fail.
The efficacious grace of God exceeds providential and temporal blessings, which all sinners enjoy in this lifetime. The efficacious grace of God reconciles the finite with infinite Father God, providing them all the spiritual blessings in the heavenly places through God the Son, via the resurrection power of God the Spirit.
This is grace:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him." Ephesians 1:3&4
Grace cannot be anything less than the above revelation.
Nang
Last edited:
Eph. 1 corporate vs individual election.
Robe: Wesley's prevenient grace? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace
Jesus is full of grace and truth (Jn. 1). His grace reaches to the uttermost, but some grieve and quench the Spirit and reject His grace and power. It is efficacious for all who believe, and all are able to believe (will not vs cannot).
Irresistible grace is an oxymoron.
Everyone repeat after me (you are getting very sleepy): Decretal theology (infra/supra, etc.) is a deductive assumption leading to wrong conclusions, not something implicit in Scripture. It is a later invention of man and Scripture is put through the screen of this preconceived theology leading to an impugnment of God's character and ways. A wrong view of sovereignty (omnicausal) and free will (compatibilism) are two root problems with Calvinism leading away from a simple biblical position.
If this does not convince you, read Gen-Rev. over and over and then repeat the above paragraph a few more times. You will see the light.
Robe: Wesley's prevenient grace? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevenient_Grace
Jesus is full of grace and truth (Jn. 1). His grace reaches to the uttermost, but some grieve and quench the Spirit and reject His grace and power. It is efficacious for all who believe, and all are able to believe (will not vs cannot).
Irresistible grace is an oxymoron.
Everyone repeat after me (you are getting very sleepy): Decretal theology (infra/supra, etc.) is a deductive assumption leading to wrong conclusions, not something implicit in Scripture. It is a later invention of man and Scripture is put through the screen of this preconceived theology leading to an impugnment of God's character and ways. A wrong view of sovereignty (omnicausal) and free will (compatibilism) are two root problems with Calvinism leading away from a simple biblical position.
If this does not convince you, read Gen-Rev. over and over and then repeat the above paragraph a few more times. You will see the light.
RobE
New member
I'm sure your right since you are more 'schooled' in Thomism than I. However I would point out that Thomism's main thrust is the irresistability of grace. In this way neo-Calvinism and Thomism are very similar in their beliefs. I've stated before that Christianity is coming to a concensus on this issue of free will vs. foreknowledge. That concensus is that foreknowledge and free will are indeed compatible. The Thomist view which may well be correct does not address the knot of this problem. They simply admit that they are unable to understand how God does it. Much like the creative act which is beyond our comprehension, we know it is true because it exists despite it not being understandable by human minds.
Well, what is the 'sufficient' grace of the Thomist? It isn't saving grace. So what form does it take within Thomism?
I understand this. The capability still exists even though it will never happen. Freedom would still exist within this situtation.
It's my belief that a basic error might separate the two views:
Rob said:
I would claim that both decree and knowledge existed simultaneously.
RobE
New member
Thanks for the link, but it didn't address the question:
If I'm correct then how are Jesus words of Judas' doom and destruction true ---unless through foreknowledge?
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.
Is it possible that foreknowledge is indeed compatible with free will?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Yes, Jesus is the source of grace and truth, and only those known by Him and chosen/created in Him are recipients of this grace and truth.
All those outside of Christ will perish for lack of grace and knowledge of truth; strictly according to the will of God, not man.
God chooses who are in Christ. Man does not choose to be known by God in Christ.
You cannot present one Scripture that says otherwise. There is NONE.
God chooses who will be saved; not man.
God extends His grace only to those He has elected in Christ. The world at large knows not the effacious, saving grace of God, because God wills not to save universally.
"Universal" teachings of any version or in any degree, are always part of a false gospel.
Nang
Surely we have answered your pet question over and over.
When was he doomed? Not before birth nor by decree. He did not start out doomed, but became a betrayer. He was not born possessed, but was possessed by Satan later in life. When Jesus spoke these words, the heart of Judas had already shifted. It is proximal foreknowledge based on perfect knowledge of the present.
I already pointed you to Sander's development of fulfilled meaning illustrated, not just predictive.
If Judas would have repented, but Tom Jones would have betrayed, then the Bible would be different and the passage would have been illustrated by someone else.
Judas as pawn/puppet is one of the bad areas of theology in J.C. Superstar. Don't fall for it. Simple foreknowledge (exhaustive) is not proven from this text since it was not a prediction from before Judas' birth. There are other NT e.g. of seeming misapplications of OT verses to NT truth. It is by way of illustration (even some related to Jesus), not prediction. We can stretch this because the Spirit makes the application. It would not be a normative hermeneutic to apply randomly without the Spirit's inspiration.
- Status