ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The elect are:

3. A bulk corporate body of people of whose members freely choose to believe. The individual members of that collection were foreknown by God. He foreknew who would believe the gospel. (STP)

You need the members of the set before you have a set to declare. Are you claiming God decreed a set then its members? :think:

Moreover, by your statement, the necessary follow on is that in knowing who would believe, God certainly knows who would not.

You are not making sense here. Can you clarify this a bit better?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

A good question here! I would say we can tell this is a definite prophecy because this has details such as you find in history when we see descriptions of events that are past

Perhaps, I’ve misunderstood. So it only becomes definite prophecy after the fact? That seems a bit convenient. If it comes true then I meant it, if it doesn’t I was joking. It seems to me to be pretty worthless to establish something that is completely unfalsifiable.

Dialog such as this, quotes are not what you expect in an estimate of probable repentance.

Really? I’m sure Hezekiah would be shocked to hear that. Exactly what part was not what you would expect?

Good morning AJ. Long time no hear from.

The end of this year was quite busy. I certainly did miss all of you.

I'm glad to see that you've accepted the compatibility of foreknowledge(yours) and free will.

So are you are now defining foreknowledge in such a way that a “guess” is synonymous?

Well, if you still adhere to incompatibility then I would say that your knowledge must have rendered the U.S. Army and the suicide bomber unable to act freely; so they mustn't be held accountable for their actions.

You know, I believe we’ve had this conversation before. I believe it went something like:

Rob: “Knowledge doesn’t limit action.”
AJ: “I agree”
Rob: “I mean just because something is known doesn’t mean that actions are limited.”
AJ: “Yeah, I said we agree.”
Rob: “No, you’ve got it backwards because foreknowledge can’t limit anything.”
AJ: “Again - never said otherwise.”
Rob: “If you understood basic logic you would see this.”
AJ:


I know you are a bright guy and can follow the above, but once again for grins, Open Theism does not have any giant stake in the argument that foreknowledge causes action.

What Open Theism actually says, and you are twisting to your strawman argument, is that those with knowledge have responsibility to act as best as they could. They do not say that the knowledge itself makes someone responsible, but the failure to do right, within the knowledge that you have, makes you responsible. Actions and results of things within your control are what define you, not knowledge, and not things outside your ability.

If you and I were holding the gates to freedom in Nazi Germany for Jews and we did not open them, we would have their blood on our hands. But we would not have the blood of Jews we couldn’t save on our hands. Is that reasonable?

The 'best guess' would be an accurate foretelling.

When someone says give us “your best guess” what they really mean is that you must not answer unless your foretelling is accurate?

I once told someone I wouldn’t answer because I didn’t know, and then they asked me for my “best guess”. At the time I thought he was asking me to estimate well. I guess I was wrong. Please send me a copy of Rob’s New Dictionary of Slang so that I can be properly prepared next time.

Which type of prophecy was the following(remember --- your knowledge that I won't accept #3 above renders me incapable of doing so):

--Concerning John 17:12-- Since Judas had free will Judas could have repented - ergo Jesus was making a best guess - one that turned out to be correct.

Conjecture? God has no beginning. "Before Abraham was I AM." Two truths: Jesus is God, He exists in the past.

“I am” is God’s name. That was the point, that Jesus was God. “I am” is the statement that God will always be around. The idea that you would try to use this as a suggestion that God exists in the past is reaching for something that is not there.

As for the idea that because God had no beginning, ergo he is outside of time, that is faulty logic. Of course both can be true – (1) God has no beginning and that (2) God resides in time – implying that time had no beginning either.

That would be heresy Ps 119:160 Jn 14:6 He is always right and that is the truth.

If you misconstrue what I meant it would definitely be heresy. Since there is that possibility – and since the debate here is heated which sometimes causes less than scrupulous debaters, I will take back and amend that part. “Wrong” can be taken out of the context I intended. I will say rather that occasionally God is disappointed with an unexpected outcome.

 

[godrulz]

As for the idea that because God had no beginning, ergo he is outside of time, that is faulty logic. Of course both can be true – (1) God has no beginning and that (2) God resides in time – implying that time had no beginning either.
[/FONT][/COLOR]


[/FONT][/COLOR]

Comments from the 'eternal now' crowd? It is a faulty assumption that time is a created thing with a beginning. Gen. 1 is simply the beginning of a new measure of time, not time itself. An eternal God can experience endless duration with no beginning and end. Genesis to Revelation should make it clear that God acts sequentially, not in an eternal simultaneity.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

The elect are:

According to Scriptures, sometimes the elect go to hell. :jawdrop:

 

[godrulz]

According to Scriptures, sometimes the elect go to hell. :jawdrop:

Give him the verse.

Election is not irrevocable. Israel faltered and some believers who were once of the elect become deceived and forfeit their identity with the corporate body.

 

[lee_merrill]

Lee: I would say we can tell this is a definite prophecy because this has details such as you find in history when we see descriptions of events that are past...

AJ: So it only becomes definite prophecy after the fact?

No, I meant when we see details such as would be in accounts of real events, yet describing future events, this indicates a certain prediction.

Dialog such as this, quotes are not what you expect in an estimate of probable repentance.

AJ: I’m sure Hezekiah would be shocked to hear that. Exactly what part was not what you would expect?

When the prediction involves "Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds." (Hos. 6:1)

So "they will earnestly seek me" is likely unconditional, with details like these, which would correspond to real events. And how can God know that they will seek him?

And even when such statements are conditional, how can God know people will seek him if certain conditions are met, if repentance is a free decision, and an unknowable one?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[lee_merrill]

Give him the verse.

Election is not irrevocable. Israel faltered and some believers who were once of the elect become deceived and forfeit their identity with the corporate body.

Yet corporate election, and election to service, are not the only kinds of election.

Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Not our group! For not all Gentiles, and not all Jews are saved, and so "he chose us" means he chose real people, individuals, and this choice is not occurring after conversion, but before creation.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Yet corporate election, and election to service, are not the only kinds of election.

Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Not our group! For not all Gentiles, and not all Jews are saved, and so "he chose us" means he chose real people, individuals, and this choice is not occurring after conversion, but before creation.

Blessings,
Lee

When he made the statement, he was talking to believers in a local church who were part of the elect (us) because they had come to faith in Him. You are reading your decretal/double predestination ideas back into the text.

 

[RobE]

When someone says give us “your best guess” what they really mean is that you must not answer unless your foretelling is accurate?

No. You have to admit that the 'best guess' is the guess that gets it right. If you give your best guess and get it wrong was it a good guess? The best would be an accurate foretelling. Yes or no?

 

[RobE]

I know you are a bright guy and can follow the above, but once again for grins, Open Theism does not have any giant stake in the argument that foreknowledge causes action.

Then how can God foreknowing free actions render them unfree?

 

[godrulz]

Have you read the Stanford philosophy link on Foreknowledge and Free will? It deals with compatibilism, Molinism, timelessness, etc. (not in great detail, but helpful analysis).

One of your problems is that you confuse ordinary 'foreknowledge' and EDF. Ordinary foreknowledge does not require that the belief cannot be false. I foreknow that I will go to work tonight. This knowledge does not make my going not free. However, I could die today, get sick, Christ could come back, etc. making my foreknowledge false. If there is libertarian free will, foreknowledge cannot be infallible.

EDF is infallible. You seem to insist that when ordinary foreknowledge- even possessed by humans let alone God- comes true, it is proof of infallible, EDF. This is a wrong extrapolation.

The issues of foreknowledge and free will are technical and complex. As the ?secular Stanford article shows, some of the Christian attempts to resolve the issue fall short.

In the end, I believe OT and a correct view of eternity/time does resolve the issue. If there is genuine freedom (vs watered-down compatibilistic 'freedom'), then EDF is impossible. This is by God's sovereign choice (to create a non-deterministic universe which would have made EDF possible) and does not affect His ability to rule the universe. It does introduce risk, but He can mitigate it. Your Molinism and middle knowledge tries to resolve the tension, but fails to do so. Counterfactuals of freedom must still have an element of uncertainty. God also cannot actualize a meticulous universe based on what x would do in situation y, since contingencies are complex and can vary out-of-character at the last second. Your cause-effect assumptions also go beyond the nature of moral creation and free will (you are trying to put us under the way inanimate creation is governed).

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Give him the verse.

Election is not irrevocable. Israel faltered and some believers who were once of the elect become deceived and forfeit their identity with the corporate body.

It’s a small distinction., but I disagree with you slightly GR. Their election (choosing) was not revoked, they just went to hell even though they were the elect. See Romans 11:28-29.

When the prediction involves "Come, let us return to the LORD. He has torn us to pieces but he will heal us; he has injured us but he will bind up our wounds." (Hos. 6:1)

That sounds somewhat like. Jeremiah 26:2-3 and Jeremiah 36:2-3 where God says “do this and then that, and then Israel will repent …. So then that didn’t work, so then do this and then that and they wll surely turn and repent …. Yet no dice again.

No. You have to admit that the 'best guess' is the guess that gets it right. If you give your best guess and get it wrong was it a good guess? The best would be an accurate foretelling. Yes or no?

If we define “best guess” properly, then it would be the one made from the most amount of available facts and knowledge. Sometimes these are wrong. A terrible gess would be one that goes against the available facts and knowledge. Sometimes these are right. That’s why it is called a guess – there is no certainty in it. It is using conjecture and intuition and rolling the dice of chance. If it were certain we wouldn’t call it a guess.

But then again … I still haven’t receiver my copy of Rob’s New Dictionary of Slang so I don’t have all the resources you do perhaps.

Then how can God foreknowing free actions render them unfree?

:bang:

God’s foreknowledge doesn’t cause the actions of men. I’ve never said that, and I completely disagreed with that in the post you are responding to.


Where is the dead horse that I may beat him again?

Now I will agree that some open theists have misunderstood this principle and have argued that God’s knowledge brings about the fatalism of man. And this would be a confusing understanding of cause and effect. However the tradition argument on this is not that knowledge causes action, but that Fatalism causes both the knowledge and the action. They are both evidences of Fate – which denies human free will.

The absurd and ridiculous position that God might know what every possible creature would do (not just could do) in any possible set of circumstances would imply (not cause) a lack of free will. If one is truly free to do otherwise, then his actions and motions are not truly knowable.

If the pagan concept of Fate exists, then yes absolute and perfect foreknowledge would exist, but not human free will.

If the pagan concept of Fate doesn’t exist, then one possibility is that man has free will, and that what man would do and the other implication is that absolute and perfect foreknowledge would not exist.

 

[lee_merrill]

Ephesians 1:4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Lee: Not our group! For not all Gentiles, and not all Jews are saved, and so "he chose us" means he chose real people, individuals, and this choice is not occurring after conversion, but before creation.

godrulz: When he made the statement, he was talking to believers in a local church who were part of the elect (us) because they had come to faith in Him.

That sure doesn't sound like "he chose you."

You are reading your decretal/double predestination ideas back into the text.

You are reading your aversion to God choosing individuals to belong to him into the text!

But what does it mean to choose a group, as in "I choose those who choose me, to be mine"? That's practically a tautology! As if a politician should say "I choose those who vote for me to be my supporters." Now if the reply is that God chooses people for service, or for glory, then this is God choosing what a group of people will have, instead of choosing people. But Paul writes "He chose us," and though God does choose what people will have, he also chooses people, and this is a primary focus in the passages on election:

1 Thess. 1:4 For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you...

And if it is said that conditions are being specified in election, rather than actual choices, where are conditions for election stated in Romans 9? Where are entrance criteria mentioned in reference to Isaac, and Jacob, and Pharaoh?

Rom. 9:12 ... not by works but by him who calls ...

Rom. 9:15-16 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

The plain point here is that God is choosing, not man, and the choice is not based on anything they do or will do.

Also, in corporate election, it is held that God is choosing one group now, and then a different group later, but are there different conditions? In both cases, isn't God choosing those who choose him, in the Arminian view? So how is this changing which group is elected?

So corporate election, even if it is true, cannot be a choice between groups, however then it seems not to have a very clear meaning.

It would also seem that God is not choosing from all whom he sees would believe, rather, he is choosing who will believe.

Rom. 9:13-16 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

And this passage is about God's choice for salvation (see 9:3,15,18,22-27).

Rom. 9:27-28 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."

Not his perception! His sentence, this is God's decision, and he will carry it out.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Rom. 9:12 ... not by works but by him who calls ...

Rom. 9:15-16 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

The plain point here is that God is choosing, not man, and the choice is not based on anything they do or will do.

The chosing comes from God. Its God's choice, not man's. Man cannot force God's hand to have mercy or compassion.

However to say that it has nothing to do with man, you would need more verses than these to show.

Of course, no one elects themselves to something of their own power. Hillary Clinton cannot elect herself. But to suggest that she has NOTHING to do with her election, is foreign and silly.

God asserts that the choice is His here ... but to think that the blessing were going to the Gentiles instead of the Jews for things that had nothing to do with the way the Jews behaved is to read those passages in a vacuum and ignore the rest of the text.

 

[RobE]

Have you read the Stanford philosophy link on Foreknowledge and Free will? It deals with compatibilism, Molinism, timelessness, etc. (not in great detail, but helpful analysis).

Yes I have. I've also presented to you the modal fallacy which exists within it. AMR has indeed exposed a different type of logical fallacy which occurs in the same article. Neither of these seem to phase your insistence that the proof is valid.

One of your problems is that you confuse ordinary 'foreknowledge' and EDF.

No, I don't. In these types of discussion then words must have precise meaning. Foreknowledge is to know beforehand; not to guess, speculate, or claim beforehand. 'Know' is in opposition to 'guess', 'speculate' and 'claim'.

If I know it will rain tommorrow and it doesn't; then I didn't really know it. I guessed, speculated, or simply claimed.​

Ordinary foreknowledge does not require that the belief cannot be false.

Yes it does.

If I know the Broncos will win the Superbowl in 2011 and they don't; then I didn't really know it. I guessed, speculated, or simply claimed.​

I foreknow that I will go to work tonight. This knowledge does not make my going not free. However, I could die today, get sick, Christ could come back, etc. making my foreknowledge false.

You use the term foreknow in the venacular and not by definition. If God knew you were going to work tonight He would know whether you would die today, get sick, Christ would come back, etc....making His knowledge complete and true.

If there is libertarian free will, foreknowledge cannot be infallible.

Libertarian free will is a subjective truth in that no one has ever done otherwise and never will.

Look into the past and tell me an instance where you did other than what you did, or the future where you do other than what you will do, or in the present and find yourself doing other than what you are doing. That's why doing otherwise is nonsense. You were able to do otherwise in the past, are able to do otherwise in the present, and will be able to do otherwise in future. However you didn't, won't, and aren't do otherwise respectively.

The objective truth is that you will do as you desire per God's decree in many instances. In other words, the objectively true definition of free will is to do what you will without coercion.

EDF is infallible. You seem to insist that when ordinary foreknowledge- even possessed by humans let alone God- comes true, it is proof of infallible, EDF. This is a wrong extrapolation.

Then for the basis of discussion you need to quit using the word 'know' as it is required to be certain knowledge in philosophical arguments. Absolutes must be the terms we use. This might also explain why a problem keeps occuring over the words 'will' and 'can' in your understanding of the Stanford Proof.

The issues of foreknowledge and free will are technical and complex. As the ?secular Stanford article shows, some of the Christian attempts to resolve the issue fall short.

No they don't. The secular article has been disproven based on it claiming that it is 'necessary' that you can't act freely if God knows 'how' you will act. There's nothing 'necessary' about it as has been shown. It isn't that complex.

Your cause-effect assumptions also go beyond the nature of moral creation and free will (you are trying to put us under the way inanimate creation is governed).

I disagree with this idea. If you look at Laplace's Demon considering that we are made up of atoms then.....

If you reject the notion on the basis that we have a spiritual aspect then you must ask yourself, 'Where did that aspect originate from?'. And answer, that it was God Himself. You agree God is able to know the outcomes from His own acts. How are you able to escape the contradiction when you willingly admit that we are in existence because of those very same acts.

 

[Lon]

“I am” is God’s name. That was the point, that Jesus was God. “I am” is the statement that God will always be around. The idea that you would try to use this as a suggestion that God exists in the past is reaching for something that is not there.

As for the idea that because God had no beginning, ergo he is outside of time, that is faulty logic. Of course both can be true – (1) God has no beginning and that (2) God resides in time – implying that time had no beginning either.

It is still an odd verb tense that would denote both necessarily: was/Am.
I apologize for not making this clear as I have tried repeatedly and thought RobE did an excellent job also. It is blatantly clear to us and I'm not sure at this point why it isn't to OVer's. That we define terms and precepts differently is evident at points and proofs like these. It is bewildering that OVer's don't see the logical problems. Just for emphasis in case a switch might turn on, time is a measurable discussion and God's existence is immeasurable. When Paul says in Ephesians "I pray you discover the height, depth, and width of God's love which is 'immeasurable'" he has already set the impossible perameter. That God is beyond our measurements is a given. Time is a measurement always. I don't believe duration as a substitute is a valid definition of time concept outside of time measurement.
I'd like to introduce this hypothetical to see if it can lead to a proper understanding of time constraints for God. It is meant to open and possibly enlighten where other discussion hasn't faired well.

Because God has the power to change the past with or without our knowing about it, it suggests very strongly that God is able to escape time restraints. God can completely remake anything past because He is creator and sustainer, do you agree? It isn't 'would He' but do you believe He can if He so chose?

If you misconstrue what I meant it would definitely be heresy. Since there is that possibility – and since the debate here is heated which sometimes causes less than scrupulous debaters, I will take back and amend that part. “Wrong” can be taken out of the context I intended. I will say rather that occasionally God is disappointed with an unexpected outcome.

Thank you, sir.

 

[RobE]

If we define “best guess” properly, then it would be the one made from the most amount of available facts and knowledge. Sometimes these are wrong. A terrible gess would be one that goes against the available facts and knowledge. Sometimes these are right. That’s why it is called a guess – there is no certainty in it. It is using conjecture and intuition and rolling the dice of chance. If it were certain we wouldn’t call it a guess.

But then again … I still haven’t receiver my copy of Rob’s New Dictionary of Slang so I don’t have all the resources you do perhaps.

Originally Posted by RobE
No. You have to admit that the 'best guess' is the guess that gets it right. If you give your best guess and get it wrong was it a good guess? The best would be an accurate foretelling. Yes or no?

Well when I say the 'best guess' is the guess that gets it right, I'm speaking of the best possible guess. Of course I agree that a guess is a guess all the same whether you get it right or not. However the 'best guess' is the one which is correct. Considering that God has complete present knowledge including the hearts and minds of free agents; how good do think His guesses are?

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.​

--Concerning John 17:12-- Since Judas had free will Judas could have repented - ergo Jesus was making a best guess - one that turned out to be correct.

The background for this verse is that Christ is praying to The Father for the apostles and the believers in the future. Christ does NOT say, "None has been lost except the one........" who may be: who could be: who I think might be: etc. "....doomed to destruction". Also Judas was still living and Jesus doesn't speculate as to Judas repenting or pray for his repentence. Christ states it as fact that Judas is "doomed to destruction". No one is asking Christ to give His 'best guess' in this passage. Christ is stating a fact of knowledge, not speculating on what might happen. Now your interpretation that Jesus was guessing doesn't make sense here. Christ was speaking plainly.

Are you able to deny Christ's own words that Judas would not repent? Or will you do as Muz did and claim God did not desire Judas to be saved?(John 6:44)

The only other solution which comes to my mind is that Christ foreknew Judas' free actions unless the scripture is fallible. Are you able to provide another?

However the tradition argument on this is not that knowledge causes action, but that Fatalism causes both the knowledge and the action. They are both evidences of Fate – which denies human free will.

Unless, of course, human free will is the cause of both the action and therefore the knowledge.

The absurd and ridiculous position that God might know what every possible creature would do (not just could do) in any possible set of circumstances would imply (not cause) a lack of free will.

'Imply' but not prove. It would require that God were eternal(exists outside of time); or that God had complete present knowledge including the hearts and minds of men(calculated the outcome). Would you claim that creating something out of nothing was also absurd and ridiculous just because men are unable to do it?

If one is truly free to do otherwise, then his actions and motions are not truly knowable.

Prove it.

If the pagan concept of Fate exists, then yes absolute and perfect foreknowledge would exist, but not human free will.

Or if knowledge was complete enough to yield precise 'best guesses'.

If the pagan concept of Fate doesn’t exist, then one possibility is that man has free will, and that what man would do and the other implication is that absolute and perfect foreknowledge would not exist.

Unless man's free will is the source of man's action and God's knowledge as you stated above.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

About Jesus' statement "Before Abraham was, I AM."​

It is blatantly clear to us and I'm not sure at this point why it isn't to OVer's.

Can you find any commentary that says this verse shows God currently “exists” in the past? I’m curious because it wasn’t evident to Matthew Henry. Although Matthew Henry points out

1) That it is the name of God.
2) That Jesus came first (before Abraham).
3) It denotes self-existence (I am, not I was)

But no mention of “existing” in the past or anything like that. Beside Matthew Henry, there is no mention in Scofield’s study notes (although he does address this verse). In fact I checked several commentaries including strong Calvinistic ones like Thomas Nelson and found no mention of him “existing” in the past. The closest I saw was that this meant Jesus didn’t “come into existence” like Abraham did, but that Jesus existed from the beginning of the world. Something I actually agree with.

I bring this up because you act like it is a wonder that we OVers don’t see it, but the truth as far as I can see, is that most non-OVers don’t see it either. What should that tell us? Maybe it’s not as obvious as you say? Maybe it’s a bit contrived?

It is bewildering that OVer's don't see the logical problems. Just for emphasis in case a switch might turn on, time is a measurable discussion and God's existence is immeasurable.

You mean see the logical problem as in that you are giving a circular argument? Only if time has a beginning does it become measurable. If time had no beginning or end, of course it is not measurable. It is infinitely described. You are begging the question by first assuming the time is finite, and then using that to prove God is outside of time. That’s a circular argument – or “begging the question”.

Because God has the power to change the past with or without our knowing about it, it suggests very strongly that God is able to escape time restraints. God can completely remake anything past because He is creator and sustainer, do you agree? It isn't 'would He' but do you believe He can if He so chose?

If you are asking me if God is able to fix things that happened in the past (like forgive past sins) then yes. If you are asking me if God can change the past, then no, God cannot change the past - His or ours.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Well when I say the 'best guess' is the guess that gets it right, I'm speaking of the best possible guess. Of course I agree that a guess is a guess all the same whether you get it right or not. However the 'best guess' is the one which is correct.

So like a “lucky guess” might be better than an educated and informed one in your new usage of the phrase “best guess”? If I understand correctly, even if all the evidence points away from what you guess, while I would call it a "silly guess", if it happens to be right, then you would say it was a "best guess".

So which do you think God is doing? Making informed guesses? Or is He just lucky? I think that God is making informed guesses. You seem to be flip-flopping on that point.

Considering that God has complete present knowledge including the hearts and minds of free agents; how good do think His guesses are?

I’m the one arguing that a “best guess” is one that uses knowledge and I termed it “the Universe’s best guess”. You are the one who seems to want to throw away the consideration of whether it was informed or not, and just look at the result. Obviously if it took a lucky guess, or one that went against the abundance of facts, in order to meet your new definition of “best guess” then whether God has or hasn’t complete present knowledge is irrelevant.

The background for this verse is that Christ is praying to The Father for the apostles and the believers in the future. Christ does NOT say, "None has been lost except the one........" who may be: who could be: who I think might be: etc. "....doomed to destruction".

God didn’t tell Moses “I may not be leading Israel through the wilderness” either.

The only other solution which comes to my mind is that Christ foreknew Judas' free actions unless the scripture is fallible. Are you able to provide another?

Several actually. Here are two:

1) Jesus is referring to Judas’ current state “doomed for destruction”. Thus the passage reads that none have been lost, except the one, the one who’s thoughts and actions in present tense have doomed him to destruction – and this one was not “kept” in order that Jesus would eventually get to the cross. Repentance, of course, would keep Judas from being "doomed", but that accurately describes his CURRENT state. This view makes this passage hardly predictive at all.

Side Note:When it says "that Scripture may be fulfilled", it would be difficult to argue that he is referring to scriptures of a betrayal since those are mostly contrived after the fact (like the “Out of Egypt” prophecy in Matthew). It is far more likely he is referring to the general plan to get Jesus to the cross. None of this is directly pertinent to our discussion, save that I should like to point out that there are no real prophecies of Judas in the Old Testament that stand on their own.​

2) Jesus is guessing that Judas will betray him. Thus the passage reads that none have been lost, except the one Jesus feels will betray him. There is no need to say words like “maybe” or “possibly” but they are obvious between God and Son.

Both of these are reasonable looks at this passage that fit with the open view.

On the conflict of Free Will and Foreknowledge​

'Imply' but not prove.

Imply is also a logical term such as “A implies not B.” If we free will, then the knowledge cannot be precise. If we do not have free will, then the knowledge could be precise or not.

And yes, I'll prove it below...

It would require that God were eternal(exists outside of time); or that God had complete present knowledge including the hearts and minds of men(calculated the outcome).

If the outcome can be calculated by factors --- then the mere existence of those factors CAUSED the man to do what he did. (Like trying to apply the outdated cause-and-effect scenario into human decision making.) That the factors came into his life, is the pagan Greek concept of Fate -- they forced his choice to go that way. The only way to know with assurance is to know that the factors involved are insurmountable in such a way that the man can not choose any other option. Thus he had no free will to do otherwise.

If the man could chose another option in the face of the factors (something I feel is quite obvious that people can do) then you cannot determine what the outcome will be based solely on factors -- ergo, a "best guess".

 

[RobE]

So like a “lucky guess” might be better than an educated and informed one in your new usage of the phrase “best guess”? If I understand correctly, even if all the evidence points away from what you guess, while I would call it a "silly guess", if it happens to be right, then you would say it was a "best guess".

So which do you think God is doing? Making informed guesses? Or is He just lucky? I think that God is making informed guesses. You seem to be flip-flopping on that point.

It's nice that you wish to continue talking about 'best guesses' when my only point in the first response was that the guess which is accurate is indeed THE best guess. God is acquiring knowledge of future actions through being completely informed of current conditions including the hearts and minds of all free agents; and, complete knowledge of natural causes as well. If you wish to call it 'guessing' and then claim God is "wrong" sometimes, then sometimes God does not make the 'best guess' according to those ideas. In fact a clinical idiot has the potential to make the 'best guess' in those cases where you claim God is in error because there is a potentially better guess in existence.

I’m the one arguing that a “best guess” is one that uses knowledge and I termed it “the Universe’s best guess”. You are the one who seems to want to throw away the consideration of whether it was informed or not, and just look at the result. Obviously if it took a lucky guess, or one that went against the abundance of facts, in order to meet your new definition of “best guess” then whether God has or hasn’t complete present knowledge is irrelevant.

"The universe's best guess" is the one which is accurate in the entire set of possible guesses. Should we deny the existence of the guess which accurately foretells the outcome within this set? Therefore, "the universe's best guess" is an accurate and detailed foretelling of the outcome. No guess would be better than that guess: informed or otherwise.

"The universes's best guess" according to previous statements could be wrong. These statements are obviously flawed.

And yes, now that we are pressing the issue, all guesses are lucky according to your position, even well informed guesses. There isn't even enough information found in a man's heart and mind to render knowledge of action within that position unless you wish to have and eat cake simultaneously.

predict : praedicere; prae: fore; dicere: say

fore·tell : to tell beforehand : predict

prophesy :
1 : to utter by or as if by divine inspiration
2 : to predict with assurance or on the basis of mystic knowledge

foresee : to see (as a development) beforehand

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

1) Jesus is referring to Judas’ current state “doomed for destruction”. Thus the passage reads that none have been lost, except the one, the one who’s thoughts and actions in present tense have doomed him to destruction – and this one was not “kept” in order that Jesus would eventually get to the cross. Repentance, of course, would keep Judas from being "doomed", but that accurately describes his CURRENT state. This view makes this passage hardly predictive at all.

How's that cake?

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.​

Jesus was praying for His disciples which included Judas Iscariot. Judas was not dead yet and this foretelling of Judas' outcome would be impossible to foretell according to libertarian ideas. Yet Christ was foretelling the outcome, not in a situation where someone asked Him for His best guess; but in a situation where Christ was speaking plainly to The Father.

As far as Jesus 'accurately foretelling Judas' current state'; what makes you conclude that someone who might yet repent is currently in a state of being 'doomed' which speaks of a future state? In other words, according to open theism, how would a current state produce future knowledge?

AJ - and this one was not “kept” in order that Jesus would eventually get to the cross.​

Is it your claim just as Muz claims that God coerced Judas into doing his evil act?

2) Jesus is guessing that Judas will betray him. Thus the passage reads that none have been lost, except the one Jesus feels will betray him. There is no need to say words like “maybe” or “possibly” but they are obvious between God and Son.

Sure.

Imply is also a logical term such as “A implies not B.” If we free will, then the knowledge cannot be precise. If we do not have free will, then the knowledge could be precise or not.

Yes, cause and effect, if and then..... However your use of the word 'implies' means 'might be' as is the use all words in the open theist universe.

And yes, I'll prove it below...

I'm asking you to prove it to me, not to yourself.

If the outcome can be calculated by factors --- then the mere existence of those factors CAUSED the man to do what he did. (Like trying to apply the outdated cause-and-effect scenario into human decision making.) That the factors came into his life, is the pagan Greek concept of Fate -- they forced his choice to go that way. The only way to know with assurance is to know that the factors involved are insurmountable in such a way that the man can not choose any other option. Thus he had no free will to do otherwise.

Nor has anyone ever done otherwise as I posited to Godrulz above. This is the same reasoning which renders LFW absurd, but go on.....

If the man could chose another option in the face of the factors (something I feel is quite obvious that people can do) then you cannot determine what the outcome will be based solely on factors -- ergo, a "best guess".

But not necessarily THE 'best guess'. People aren't that complex. Even men who don't know the hearts and minds of individuals are able to determine the future actions of free agents. I find it interesting that even society's simpletons such as psychologists, profilers, law enforcement agents, sociologists, judges, politicians, and etc.,,,; are able to do what you find it impossible for God to do. When these folks determine the outcome; then are the individuals who actually perform the actions unfree according to open theism?

I think what you are skipping over is the obvious fact that acts are free if caused by the will of the one who performs them. In this one case, knowledge of outcome doesn't preclude free action.