ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[godrulz]

All of us have some ordinary knowledge of future things. This does not mean they actually exist before the future choices are made, or that it was impossible to have a different, contingent outcome, making the knowledge wrong.

Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of free will contingencies is another can of worms not parallel to this.

 

[Yorzhik]

AMR? Lon? lee_merrill? Aren't you going to correct RobE? Or do you agree with this utter stupidity?

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.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

AMR? Lon? lee_merrill? Aren't you going to correct RobE? Or do you agree with this utter stupidity?

RoBE writes:

"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."

I think he is using the tactic of reductio ad absurdum and you are missing the point.

God does not accrete new knowledge to make newly informed 'guesses'.

 

[Lon]

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.






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.







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






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 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...






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".

You are stating then that time is coexistent with God and therefore not a sequence of events as we define it. I have less problem with your redefinition as you are asserting that God is infinite and also that time itself is other than merely measurable sequence. That is an interesting concession I'll play around with a bit, but for now, it is a broader sense of time than the dictionary definition.

Let me ask just for clarity: Is a line or ray measurable? In a similar fashion it is equally difficult to measure the eternal with a clock.

You also said something incredible to me. You assert God cannot change the past and it is perplexing. Remember everything is created and sustained by God and you are asserting He cannot (never mind the hypothetical at this point, I agree He doesn't) remake His creation. I don't see how you can deny His power to do so. You are subjugating God to duration and progression yet I see Him as hypothetically, completely able to remake anything He desires, like building a sandcastle.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

 

[godrulz]

I finished reading the Stanford FK/FW link. It was not overly helpful, but does show that it is a problematic issue with a variety of possible resolutions. Modal logic is relevant, but technical and difficult. It mentions OT in passing, the best resolution in my mind. There is a wealth of literature dealing with these issues, so I would not be dogmatic before considering strengths and weaknesses of various views.

Hyper-Calvinism (compatibilism) and Molinism (middle knowledge) are inadequate to the best of my reasoning ability.

I am sharing an opinion, an assertion, AMR. I do not have the logical, philosophical, theological expertise or time to write a book length treatment (necessary) to scratch the surface on proofs for my assertions. I have read book length treatments over the years, so am satisfied my conclusions are informed for myself. There is no short cut to convince others who are steeped in their own theological worldviews.

 

[RobE]

All of us have some ordinary knowledge of future things. This does not mean they actually exist before the future choices are made, or that it was impossible to have a different, contingent outcome, making the knowledge wrong.

Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of free will contingencies is another can of worms not parallel to this.

Godrulz,

Since you seem to be the only open theist around here who isn't bandying about the idea that God is wrong and actually rejoicing at that conclusion, I'll respond in a straight forward manner.

Wrong knowledge isn't knowledge at all; it's ignorance.

No one is arguing that future choices exist today or that it is impossible for the agent making those choices to do otherwise because of external coercion.

The argument is that it's possible to know future free choices and God is able to do anything which is possible.

Your statement, "All of us have some ordinary knowledge of future things", applies to God as well. If we all have ordinary and natural knowledge of future things; then God has extraordinary and supernatural knowledge of future things. What we do in a limited fashion(made in His image); He is able to do in a limitless fashion.

Is God a man or is there an infinite expanse between man's ability and God's ability?

 

[godrulz]

There is an infinite expanse between Creator and creature. However, we are like God in some ways (image of God), but not in other ways. Just because we both experience sequence is not a humanizing of God anymore than the fact that God and man are personal and have the ability to think blurs the Creator-creature distinction.

It is not 'wrong' if God knows the future as possible vs actual. If...then conditionals are not right or wrong, but a moving from possible to actual in the present.

The issue is not a compromise on omniscience (we both affirm), but what are logically possible objects of certain knowledge. Not all things are possible for God, so I see the omniscience issue paralleling the omnipotence issue (God cannot create square circles or married bachelors...law of non-contradiction; He cannot kiss Cinderella in New York..this does not limit His omnipotence).

"If an act be free, it must be contingent; If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if one of many possibles, it must be uncertain (even for an omniscient being); and if uncertain, it must be unknowable (except as possible/probable unless unconditionally determined by intention and ability to make it certain no matter what)."

"As omnipotence is limited by the possible, so omniscience is limited by the knowable. We do not limit omnipotence by denying its power to do impossible or self-contradictory things (make a rock too heavy to lift...even secular philosophers understand this). Neither do we limit omniscience by denying its power to foreknow unknowable things (a future free act is, previous to its existence, a nothing; the knowing of a nothing is a bald contradiction)."

Did the lights go on? Eureka? If not, at least understand my view even if you disagree with it. You need to think outside the box objectively.

 

[RobE]

Modal Fallacy Revealed

Modal Fallacy Revealed

I finished reading the Stanford FK/FW link. It was not overly helpful, but does show that it is a problematic issue with a variety of possible resolutions. Modal logic is relevant, but technical and difficult.

I think I can even though I won't!

The Modal Fallacy isn't that hard to understand.

Libertarian Free Will
A stands for doing; B stand for doing otherwise
Premise 1 The answer is either A or B
Premise 2 The answer is not possibly both A and B:

Set of Conclusions
If A is true then A is necessarily true.
If A is true then A cannot be false.
If A is true then B must be false.
If A is true then B cannot be true.

If B is true, then B must be true.
If B is true, then B cannot be false.
If B is true, then A must be false.
If B is true, then A cannot be true.

Which of the above conclusions is true, Godrulz? Not a single one of them.

A is contingent, and B is contingent. Yet the conclusions state that from the assumed truth of either of (the two contingencies) A or B, it follows that A and B are each either necessarily true or necessarily false. This is the modal fallacy since neither of the contingencies is necessarily true or false. What we might say about the original premise is this:

It is necessary if A is true then B is false and not possible that A and B are true.
It is necessary if B is true then A is false and not possible that B and A are true.

You just have to remember that in saying, "it's not possible that A and B are both true" is equivalent to saying, "It's necessary that if A then not B or necessary if B then not A.

It is incorrect to say, "it's not possible that A and B are both true is equivalent to saying, "If A then necessarily not B or If B then necessarily not A."

Incorrect:
a. If God knows you will answer the phone tommorrow at 2 p.m., it is now neccessary that you answer the phone tommorrow at 2 p.m.
b. You can't do otherwise.

Correct:
a. Necessarily, If God knows you will answer the phone tommorrow at 2 p.m.,you will answer the phone tommorow at 2 p.m.
b. You won't do otherwise.​

Another error in Stanford's argument is a mixing of logical operands between knowledge and will which have no logical relationship:

1. God's knowledge pertains to what you will or won't do. What you can or can't do is irrelevant to His knowledge.
2. LFW pertains to what you can or can't do. What you will or won't do is irrelevant to LFW.​

Hope this clears it up.

Rob Mauldin

 

[RobE]

There is an infinite expanse between Creator and creature. However, we are like God in some ways (image of God), but not in other ways. Just because we both experience sequence is not a humanizing of God anymore than the fact that God and man are personal and have the ability to think blurs the Creator-creature distinction.

I've never claimed that God isn't co-experiencing time with us. I've only claimed that God is not limited by time and was in existence before time began.

It is not 'wrong' if God knows the future as possible vs actual. If...then conditionals are not right or wrong, but a moving from possible to actual in the present.

I hope my previous post shows you that I agree with this. Future events do not exist yet within time whether God knows of them in the future or if God knows of them through perfect present knowledge is what is being debated.

The issue is not a compromise on omniscience (we both affirm), but what are logically possible objects of certain knowledge. Not all things are possible for God, so I see the omniscience issue paralleling the omnipotence issue (God cannot create square circles or married bachelors...law of non-contradiction; He cannot kiss Cinderella in New York..this does not limit His omnipotence).

All things are possible for Him, especially those things which are possible for us to do such as knowing the future actions of free agents.

"If an act be free, it must be contingent; If contingent, it may or may not happen, or it may be one of many possibles. And if one of many possibles, it must be uncertain (even for an omniscient being); and if uncertain, it must be unknowable (except as possible/probable unless unconditionally determined by intention and ability to make it certain no matter what)."

Why do uncertain acts necessitate uncertain knowledge(refer to previous post)?

"As omnipotence is limited by the possible, so omniscience is limited by the knowable.

Yet you admit that with perfect present knowledge its possible to know future free acts. If possibly known then God knows them.

 

[lee_merrill]

Yet you admit that with perfect present knowledge its possible to know future free acts. If possibly known then God knows them.

Did Patman ever reply to the similar point you made along these lines?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ApologeticJedi]

"The universe's best guess" is the one which is accurate in the entire set of possible guesses.

Rob, in this same post you said, “It's nice that you wish to continue talking about 'best guesses' when…”. Why are you pretending I’m the only one bringing this up?

When I said “the universe’s best guess” I meant to use the phrase the way everyone but you uses it. Why do you continue to try to rewrite MY words? Wouldn’t I know what I meant better than you? Why are you so determined on the strawman?

When I ask for your “best guess” I’m asking you to give me the best guess that you can make, right or wrong. You are trying to redefine terms and it is silly.

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.

I’m not sure what you are saying. I’ve know read your last sentence five times and I completely agree that you can’t perfectly know what someone will ultimately do (this seems to be what you are admitting).

Jesus was praying for His disciples which included Judas Iscariot.

Actually it would seem that by the “I kept them” phrase, when put in contrast with “none was lost save the one” that he was not including Judas, but this is probably not important to either or our points.

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.

Apparently you had a hard time following #1, I’ll try to explain it better.

In #1, which you are quoting, I am pointing out that anyone who is currently out of favor with God can rightly be said to be doomed for destruction --- a fact taught one hundred times over in the Bible. Just like it would be true of anyone not saved right at this moment – they are “doomed for destruction”. They are right now, doomed. Of course they can change their fate. And that’s the way the Bible always talks about the unsaved … they are currently doomed.

John 3:18 – says those that do not believe are ALREADY condemned. Yet people who didn’t believe in Jesus before this statement came to believe in Jesus after this statement. So obviously Jesus was talking about their current state, which was reversible.

This view means that this is not predictive about Judas at all. It is merely (in this alternative rending of the passage) mentioning his current state as being lost, and was taken in even though he wasn’t a true believer, in order to advance the plan of the cross (fulfill Scriptures).

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

I don’t know what Muz said. It would be improper for me to respond to Muz’s post. Why don’t’ you ask me specifically what you mean. Did God coerce Judas? Coerce has three different meanings that I know of… to which do you refer?

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.

No Rob, my usage of the word “implies” was formulary as I said. I did not intend “might be”. And I clarified this in my last post to you. First you try to redefine the MY meaning of “best guess” and then you try to redefine MY meaning of “implies”. Is this some game that you want to twist words rather than understand my meaning? Wouldn’t it be better if we debated what each other really believe rather than strawmen? I have done you the courtesy of trying to follow what you say without redefining YOUR terms. I only ask for the same.

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.

They are able to make guesses based on information and they gain a high success rate. That’s a moot point. No one who studies psychology will ever claim it to be an exact science.

Usually men respond to their strongest impulse. Some however do not. Arbitrary actions are common in every person alive. There is no true cause-and-effect in the human mind, just like there is no true cause-and-effect at the molecular level in quantum science. What we are discovering is that there are many areas where the Newtonian idea of causality simply does not continue to explain reality. For the most part, dealing with macro-atomic physics, it is still very useful. But in people and decision making and with the paths of electrons, it is not always accurate.

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.

That’s like a card game. In fact if the factors leave no other option, man’s will is only an illusion. There is no such thing in that view.

 

[lee_merrill]

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.

I also insist that God is choosing individuals here, and not groups, that was the point in dispute, as a matter of fact.

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?

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 corporate election view? So how is this changing which group is elected?

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

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ApologeticJedi]

You are stating then that time is coexistent with God and therefore not a sequence of events as we define it. I have less problem with your redefinition as you are asserting that God is infinite and also that time itself is other than merely measurable sequence.

First of all, I never said that time does not have sequence. I said that the fullest scope of time is not measurable because it stretches towards the infinite in each direction.

Secondly, a measurable period (duration) is only one of many definitions of time you’ll find in a dictionary. Another is that time is a continuum; one that is nonspatial and has events in sequence. When you do bother to pick up a dictionary I'm sure you will notice that this is one of its definitions.

Let me ask just for clarity: Is a line or ray measurable? In a similar fashion it is equally difficult to measure the eternal with a clock.

A line continues on and on and is not measured. A clock only measures between points within time. Measuring the difference between two points on a line is not complicated at all - and that's all a clock does.

You also said something incredible to me. You assert God cannot change the past and it is perplexing. Remember everything is created and sustained by God and you are asserting He cannot (never mind the hypothetical at this point, I agree He doesn't) remake His creation. I don't see how you can deny His power to do so. You are subjugating God to duration and progression yet I see Him as hypothetically, completely able to remake anything He desires, like building a sandcastle.

Can you explain your reasoning here?

Both you and I agree that there are certain things God can’t do. God can’t make adultery into a virtue. God can’t make himself not exist. God can’t change his truest attributes (even if we disagree on what these are, we both agree God can’t). I hold that time is an attribute of God, so of course God cannot rework himself.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I also insist that God is choosing individuals here, and not groups, that was the point in dispute, as a matter of fact.

Even if it were individuals, the idea that someone would have nothing to do with their election is still a foolish argument. This passage doesn't say that God choose based on nothing. Are you saying God is capricious?

But you are right, as an aside, that we also disagree that this passage ceases to flow with the context of the entire book of Romans which is largely about the gospel going to the Gentiles (something your view has a hard time with). I would say it remains in the same context as all the verses and chapters around it. I think you must think it changes context, only to change back later.

If you wish to change topics to whether it was a corporate or individual election, I'll oblige.

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?

The reason that Israel fell out of favor with God are noted in Romans 9:1-8 as well as Romans 10:1-3, and pretty much the entire chapter in Romans 11. That is why God elected the Gentiles, “through their fall, salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.” But alas, you don't think we are talking about groups.

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 corporate election view?

Actually, God is choosing those that did not choose him (Rom 9:30). I think you are a good example of when someone is confused on one point, they continue to build on that unstable foundation.

You think that election being spoken of here is towards salvation … that is not entirely the case. God is moving from His plan with Israel. (I know you don’t abide by this, but here me out.) God was going to use Israel to witness to the world … that was their election. It was not a guarantee of salvation (Rom 9:31-32). Because Israel continued to rebel, they stumbled. Because they stumbled God choose another plan.

But wait!! That’s not fair!

To which we get into the passages you are reading. God was not beholden when he chose Israel as if Israel earned the right to be the elect (Rom 9:9-13).

As for salvation (which Romans chapters 7-11 is not directly speaking of - although indirectly), and this whole nonsense about God just choosing people who choose Him ---- that has never been the case. Perhaps you completely fell asleep at the part where that for a Jew to choose God he had to be circumcised, but for a Gentile to choose God he did not. If you missed that, and countless other revelations, then I guess you would get the impression that they were the same.

 

[lee_merrill]

... alas, you don't think we are talking about groups.

I actually said there are more types of election than corporate, yes, this is talking about groups, but primarily, this involves election of individuals, is the point.

Actually, God is choosing those that did not choose him (Rom 9:30).

So then how is it that this is projected into the future, "only a remnant will be saved"? This is referred to as God's choice, his sentence. And then afterwards, "all Israel will be saved," but how can this be known?

God was going to use Israel to witness to the world … that was their election. It was not a guarantee of salvation (Rom 9:31-32). Because Israel continued to rebel, they stumbled. Because they stumbled God choose another plan.

But Paul is talking about salvation primarily here, "my prayer is that Israel may be saved" not "be a good witness to the world.'

Blessings,
Lee

 

[RobE]

Rob, in this same post you said, “It's nice that you wish to continue talking about 'best guesses' when…”. Why are you pretending I’m the only one bringing this up?

AJ, you are the one who posited that God was guessing. I, of course, reject the idea that God lacks knowledge of any kind; especially when knowledge of future free acts seems to be common even amongst humans. Shouldn't I argue your idea to its logical conclusion or should we discuss another subject?

When I ask for your “best guess” I’m asking you to give me the best guess that you can make, right or wrong. You are trying to redefine terms and it is silly.

I'm asking you to admit that in the spectrum of guesses from 'absurd' to 'precise' the only guess which Our Lord might make is the one labeled 'precise'.

This is knowledge of a future free action.

Actually it would seem that by the “I kept them” phrase, when put in contrast with “none was lost save the one” that he was not including Judas, but this is probably not important to either or our points.

Actually I believe it is. It tells us that even Jesus was unable to protect or convince the one who was foreknown to betray Him without coercing, and therefore destroying, Judas' free will. It is my belief that Christ desired ALL to be saved including Judas Iscariot.

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.)​

This is knowledge of a future free action.

doom intransitive verb:
1: to give judgment against : condemn
2 a: to fix the fate of : destine b: to make certain the failure or destruction of
synonyms see fate

fate intransitive verb : destine​

destine :
1: to decree beforehand : predetermine
2 a: to designate, assign, or dedicate in advance; b: to direct, devise, or set apart for a specific purpose or place​

John 17:6 "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While 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. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one.​

You see, it's my position that Judas' believed therefore Christ states, "8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me." So just as Lucifer believes, Judas believed. It wasn't through disbelief that Judas was doomed, it was despite this belief that rebellion grew freely in Judas and caused the betrayal.

This is knowledge of a future free action.

2 Thessalonians 2:3 Don't let anyone deceive you in any way, for (that day will not come) until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. 4He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God's temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
5Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? 6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time. 7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.​

"Will be revealed" future tense. 'Doomed to destruction' reveals a future state of being. A state brought about through free decisions from our position. Known in advance. It doesn't denote a present condition, but a future condition. I just can't accept your idea that 'doom' is a present state. It's a future state, one which presents itself at judgement.

This is knowledge of a future free action.

John 3:18 – says those that do not believe are ALREADY condemned. Yet people who didn’t believe in Jesus before this statement came to believe in Jesus after this statement. So obviously Jesus was talking about their current state, which was reversible.

John 3:21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."( John 6: 44 )​

Yes. I see where this might apply in general, but I reject that it is specifically true to Judas. Read Christ's words in John pertaining to Judas. Being under judgement is different than being destroyed. You have answered the 'doomed' but what becomes of the 'to destruction'.

This is knowledge of a future free action.

"None have been lost except...."​

Do you see where my claim that Christ desired Judas' salvation fits free will theism better than Christ condemned Judas to destruction? In other words, do you see Christ is not merely guessing as to the future outcome of Judas Iscariot? Where God Himself was not able to quell the rebellion in Judas and "keep Judas safe"? No, Christ was not speaking of just the current condition, but Christ knew that Judas would not repent and that his rebellion would be revealed in the future(John 6:70).

This is knowledge of a future free action.

Did God coerce Judas? Coerce has three different meanings that I know of… to which do you refer?

I speak of God witholding grace from Judas' intentionally to bring about the betrayal. I'm speaking of God condemning Judas' intentionally to disallow repentance in the future. Positive reprobation.

First you try to redefine the MY meaning of “best guess” and then you try to redefine MY meaning of “implies”. Is this some game that you want to twist words rather than understand my meaning?

I'm simply trying to get a firm definition of what "best guess" and "implies" is from your perspective. I wasn't attempting to 'redefine' anything. 'Implies' means 'suggests' in my vocabulary. The 'best' guess means guessing the perfect outcome in my vocabulary since that is one possible 'guess' in all potential guesses.

If God 'guesses'(which I reject) then don't you accept that the Universe's 'best' guess would be the one which is accurate? Also don't you accept the Universe's 'best' guess would indeed be God's guess since God has all available information?

This is knowledge of a future free action.

 

[RobE]

Both you and I agree that there are certain things God can’t do. God can’t make adultery into a virtue. God can’t make himself not exist. God can’t change his truest attributes (even if we disagree on what these are, we both agree God can’t). I hold that time is an attribute of God, so of course God cannot rework himself.

Proverbs 8:22 "The LORD brought me(wisdom) forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old;

23 I was appointed from eternity,
from the beginning, before the world began.​

What happened before the 'first work of God'? Did God exist eternally before that moment?

I notice in your discussion you think of time linearly. In fact you must because if time is a sequence of events then it becomes two dimensional in nature. Was their duration before God appointed His first work?

If so, then was God stagnant, unliving, uncreating, etc.... Doesn't making time two dimensional establish that you believe God had a beginning which is contrary to scripture. No, time has more than two dimensions or could possible have more than two dimensions. In which case God is not bound by being sequential since He is eternally uncreated. God's first act established time, or the sequence of events as you know them. Is the creation greater than the creator in any instance?

God has established times and God has appointed times. Establishing and appointing denote creating or knowing sequential events both of which contradict a sequential view of time.

God eternally being inactive prior to the first act makes no sense. God is. "I am" is the statement He makes of Himself. If creation is one of His first acts then this idea speaks of God being proximally non-existent to the creative act. Wrong. Scripture says that appointing wisdom was indeed God's first act. Was God non-existent prior to this act since time is one of His attributes according to the thinking of your post?

The only answer is that God is eternally present. God does not have beginning or end, but exist in the eternal now whether that 'now' is past, present, or future. God is.

We experience time sequentially because we are created with a beginning....

 

[RobE]

Did Patman ever reply to the similar point you made along these lines?

Blessings,
Lee

No. Patrick, you, and I have a long history of discussing these matters to no avail. Despite AMR's assertion to the contrary, Godrulz seems to be making the most sense when looking at Muz's and Clete's answers to the question of how God knows future free acts.

Muz: Positive reprobation
Clete: Knowing isn't really knowing

How about our significant questions such as:

How does God know future free actions of groups?
Isn't it logically contradictory to create something out of nothing?
New: How does eternity relate to sequential events?

Open theism certainly likes it's cake(forordination/foreknowledge) and eating it too(libertarian free will).

 

[patman]

Did Patman ever reply to the similar point you made along these lines?

Blessings,
Lee

Yeah, I answer this question aaaaaalllll the time.

Maybe one day someone will read.

 

[RobE]

Yeah, I answer this question aaaaaalllll the time.

Maybe one day someone will read.

You might tell us then in a concise manner how some free acts are known while foreknowledge and free action remain incompatible?