ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[RobE]

Secondly if we were to look at Christ “giving up” on Judas, we have nothing to suggest that this ever occurs. In fact, we see quite often in the Bible that God never gives up on people, but all we would have to your viewpoint is your supposition that it occurs. I see you have provided no evidence or facts to back up this supposition. Why should one go that far outside of scripture and evidence?

John 17

1After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: "Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. 5And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Jesus Prays for His Disciples
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. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.

20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."

Except His prayer. Does this answer your post?

 

[lee_merrill]

So you agree that Romans is MAINLY talking about group election, but that indirectly it has implications towards individual election?

I believe both group and individual election are in prominent focus in Paul's discussion.

Paul is talking primarily about corporate election. He isn’t speaking of salvation of individual.

Well, salvation of groups means salvation of individuals, correct? So how can this be known, that mostly Gentiles will repent, and then later, "all Israel"?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ApologeticJedi]

There can be no sequence where there isn't a beginning or and ending and God has neither.

:kookoo:
You must be joking. That’s demonstratively false.

I suppose you've never heard of "real numbers"? Surely you've heard of them. They are a set of positive and negative numbers that include both whole and factional numbers. They have no beginning or ending. And still yet, two follows after one - thus they have sequence.

Why does the settled view consistently deny the most obvious truths of life? If they would just stick to what they could prove we could make some headway ... but instead we get "that something without beginning or end can't have sequence" nonsense type stuff. I'm not trying to harp on just you. I see this from the settled viewers on here all the time. I constantly get really far-fetched ideas to hold to their case. (RobE, are you listening?)

Don't forget that we see God as relational to time as well, just not constrained by it.

That's irrelevant to what I said. The Bible doesn't ALSO portray God within time ... it ONLY portrays God within time.

Denying a timeless beginning still doesn't solve the dilemma if you catch my meaning here. OV simply ignores the problem, not erases it (I hope you can see that).

The argument of inside vs. outside of time usually comes up when the settled view tries to prove that God is immutable or unable to change. Simply because you've failed to see the relevance of that argument -- doesn't actually make it less relevant. Most of your settled friends would strongly argue that it is relevant since that is their "proof" of God's immutability.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Well, salvation of groups means salvation of individuals, correct? So how can this be known, that mostly Gentiles will repent, and then later, "all Israel"?

Group election does not mean salvation of anyone in the sense that they are headed to heaven or hell. As I've said before, most of the elect in the Bible are headed to heaven or hell --- ie. are not saved.

(There are multiple means by which we could talk about "salvation" but I'm assuming you are referring to the main one - the primarly used definition on TOL.)

You could be a member of the elect people, living in the elect land, inside the elect citiy, of the elect tribe and offering meat inside a room called - roughly transliterated - the elect of elects (the "holy of holies") and still be headed for hell. In fact, sadly, many in that position were headed just that way.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Except His prayer. Does this answer your post?

Based on Jesus words, even including the ones you've underlined, I feel Judas was not one of the one Jesus was mentioning about "keeping them". After all, he later says "none were lost - save him".

However I am not as stubborn as you. I do acknowledge different renderings of the same passage to support different ideas, and I can see where you arrive at yours. I don't think your rendering flows as nicely as the commonly held one, but I can see where you get it.

Anyway, this is a lot of time to waste on a point that helps neither of our positions. Jesus still could have been referring to Judas' current condemned state, or even if he were speaking of the future, He could have been making a best guess that Judas would continue on the path that he was headed instead of repent. Either of those possibilities exist. In one there is no prediction here at all. In the other, there is a prediction no more necessarily sound than all of the predictions God has ever made - some of which did not come to pass.

Simply put, I think you are straining a gnat to try to make this verse fit outside of the open view position, and yet several reasonable positions exist within this verse that fit nicely with the open view.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

AJ makes a contradiction here when He says that 1. God makes the 'best' guess(or Universe's best guess); 2. but is not always right. The two are contradictory.

I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but it's about me so I'll respond.

RobE, you should just give up this flummery. To give ones “best guess” refers to making a guess that is based on the most logical and reasonable assumptions --- but a guess is still based on assumptions thus a best guess is not always right.

Your example where the sum of 2+2 is predictable is beyond convenient.

If someone were to ask your best guess of what color jeans (saying that it will be jeans and not pants) I will wear tomorrow – the absolute best guess from your standpoint would be blue. This is because blue is widely the most popular color of jeans, and it is the most commonly wore color. This fact becomes even more predominate for men than women – and even more so with heterosexual men than homosexual men. Of course there are other colors of jeans that men such as myself might wear – although black is the only other color of jeans I currently have.

Even though blue would be a best guess - there is the possibility that you would be wrong. I won't even know until I go into my closet tomorrow, so obviously no one else can know for certain.

That you are trying so hard to deny this makes you look rather foolish and doesn’t particularly endear me to take your posts sincerely. I’ve chastised Lon for being obtuse towards real numbers, but all known thick-headedness pales in comparison to your denial of what “best guess” means.

 

[lee_merrill]

Group election does not mean salvation of anyone in the sense that they are headed to heaven or hell.

But my question is still this, how can God know that mostly Gentiles will repent, and only a remnant of Jewish people, and then later, "all Israel will be saved"?

 

[ApologeticJedi]

But my question is still this, how can God know that mostly Gentiles will repent, and only a remnant of Jewish people, and then later, "all Israel will be saved"?

God knew that mostly Jews were currently rebellious against God's plan, so He turned to the Gentiles as part of his plan.

Later God will turn back to Israel. Once again God will return to their corporate election.

At that time, God will send Isreal through her tribulation destroying those that are ungodly and leaving only the godly left alive as the prophets predicted.

 

[Lon]

:kookoo:
You must be joking. That’s demonstratively false.

I suppose you've never heard of "real numbers"? Surely you've heard of them. They are a set of positive and negative numbers that include both whole and factional numbers. They have no beginning or ending. And still yet, two follows after one - thus they have sequence.

Uhhhhggg, You've refuted nothing.

On your numberline analogy, there is a beginning point, and I'll leave it up to you to figure that out (but don't hesitate to ask if you need help).

Here is the point: We both see God as relational to our time sequence, no problem. #'s aren't persons and they don't think for themselves. Is God systematic and orderly? Yes, that is part of the immutable discussion, but we are talking about God having no beginning and no end.

Why does the settled view consistently deny the most obvious truths of life? If they would just stick to what they could prove we could make some headway ... but instead we get "that something without beginning or end can't have sequence" nonsense type stuff. I'm not trying to harp on just you. I see this from the settled viewers on here all the time. I constantly get really far-fetched ideas to hold to their case. (RobE, are you listening?)

Because it isn't as obvious of a truth as you'd like to see it. I'll say it again so you understand. It truly boggles my mind that you don't, truly. God skips ahead and shows John what is going to happen, and not just a vision for John, but all of Christianity. God wants us to know what is going to happen. There are elders in that vision. John speaks with them. Mere fabrication? An illusion? God dreamed up the scenario but it didn't really happen? Come on, think with me. OV is crazy to deny God transcends time. Here, you want to hear something I really believe? I believe time will cease to exist in glory. How does that grab you? The reason, I believe, we are locked into forward progression is specifically because of sin. God shortened man's days to force him to contemplate the brevity of finite existence. God desires man to be saved. Adam and Eve would never have physically died. They would have enjoyed good health and lived forever. When you compare sequence to forever, it not only is very insignificant, it ceases to have any important bearing on one's thinking at all. You have all eternity to figure out what you are going to do with all of eternity. Maybe we'll garden or something. We'll see, but God knows and has it planned.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to worry much about a watch or a calendar nor will it enter my mind. Quality vs. quantity. I believe God is focused on Quality. He isn't going to be concerned about how long it takes me to build one watch as long as it is better than a Rolex.

That's irrelevant to what I said. The Bible doesn't ALSO portray God within time ... it ONLY portrays God within time.

Hogwash. "From eternity, to eternity, You are God." "A thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years." "Before He was born, God declared the older would serve the younger." "In 300 years, a son will be born named Josiah and he will put to death the priests of Baal."

I believe emphatically that the scripture is so clear on this point that it is the OV that is blinded to the reality of truth. You cannot escape "The God of (said denomination) is a vile... (whatever). You have God seeing events as they happen. OV escapes nothing. My God knows things to happen future, but He 'causes the rain to fall for the just and the unjust." He is trustworthy regardless of man's impression and answers to no-one. He has told us He is good, loving, right, gracious, full of loving-kindness and mercy and I believe Him.

The argument of inside vs. outside of time usually comes up when the settled view tries to prove that God is immutable or unable to change. Simply because you've failed to see the relevance of that argument -- doesn't actually make it less relevant. Most of your settled friends would strongly argue that it is relevant since that is their "proof" of God's immutability.

It comes up when we see "You will deny me three times, before the rooster crows" and all the other verses already quoted. Honestly, OV says they read scripture for its natural meaning, but telling people 300 years about a boy named Josiah who would become king and destroy wicked worship? Saying his grandfather would be Manasseh? I believe my understanding is very basic and clear understanding of the text. Time is no factor for God.

 

[RobE]

Based on Jesus words, even including the ones you've underlined, I feel Judas was not one of the one Jesus was mentioning about "keeping them". After all, he later says "none were lost - save him".

Which is exactly my point. It renders your following statement false.

Originally Posted by ApologeticJedi
Secondly if we were to look at Christ “giving up” on Judas, we have nothing to suggest that this ever occurs. In fact, we see quite often in the Bible that God never gives up on people, but all we would have to your viewpoint is your supposition that it occurs. I see you have provided no evidence or facts to back up this supposition. Why should one go that far outside of scripture and evidence?

Christ had given up on Judas. Judas would not repent, ever. How do you as a LFW advocate reconcile this with your ideas about foreknowledge and free will?

 

[RobE]

I realize this wasn't addressed to me, but it's about me so I'll respond.

RobE, you should just give up this flummery. To give ones “best guess” refers to making a guess that is based on the most logical and reasonable assumptions --- but a guess is still based on assumptions thus a best guess is not always right.

Your example where the sum of 2+2 is predictable is beyond convenient.

If someone were to ask your best guess of what color jeans (saying that it will be jeans and not pants) I will wear tomorrow – the absolute best guess from your standpoint would be blue. This is because blue is widely the most popular color of jeans, and it is the most commonly wore color. This fact becomes even more predominate for men than women – and even more so with heterosexual men than homosexual men. Of course there are other colors of jeans that men such as myself might wear – although black is the only other color of jeans I currently have.

Even though blue would be a best guess - there is the possibility that you would be wrong. I won't even know until I go into my closet tomorrow, so obviously no one else can know for certain.

That you are trying so hard to deny this makes you look rather foolish and doesn’t particularly endear me to take your posts sincerely. I’ve chastised Lon for being obtuse towards real numbers, but all known thick-headedness pales in comparison to your denial of what “best guess” means.

WHY, oh why, must we constantly be considering how man gains knowledge vs. how God has knowledge?

Is God a man? Would God make the Universe's best guess in all situations? Guesses are reliant on information. The more information the better the guess. God has ALL information. Is God superior to man in your mind? If so then might a man guess correctly the color of the jeans you put on tommorrow? Does God know what color jeans you have in the closet?

In other words, God's information is infinitely greater than ours is and so are His guesses. Yet they still are not the Universe's best guesses unless He guesses correctly. God's guesses are not guesses at all. They are Divine Knowledge if they are the Universe's best guesses.

 

[godrulz]

....-1001, -100, -1, 0, 1, 3, 9.......

Tell me the beginning and end of number sequences (I don't see it). Infinity is a mathematical concept that you can make as simple or complex as you want.

Ps. 102:27 God's years are endless. This is not a timeless statement.

Ps. 90:2 God is from everlasting to everlasting, endless time, not timelessness. There is a 'before' sequence even for God (creation is not co-eternal).

Rev. 1:4 Tensed expressions are used of God showing past, present, future is not simultaneous in an eternal now for him. God exists in an endless duration of time/sequence/succession. 'Eternal now' is incoherent on all levels.

1000 years=day is perception/perspective, figure of speech, not a literal mathematical equation.

There is time in heaven, the eternal state (I listed the verses previously).

Take these at face value rather than reading vapid, philosophical assumptions to rationalize away the text.

 

[Lon]

....-1001, -100, -1, 0, 1, 3, 9.......

Tell me the beginning and end of number sequences (I don't see it). Infinity is a mathematical complex that you can make as simple or complex as you want.

Did you know that a number line is actually two rays? Did you know that a line has to cross at least one point to be a line? Let's call 'now' zero hour. No progression at the 'moment.' -40 -30 -20 -10 (me) 10 20 30 40.
My line is a segment in flesh and a ray in promise, not a line. It is more correct to say my line isn't a line, it is a segment or ray depending on what we are talking about. My life is a segment and a ray. "Now" "me" zero are a point in time for reference. God relates to my 'now' but is not constrained to sequence as you and I. I understand your progression argument, but I'm saying that logically, God is able to skip ahead on that line and not predict,guess, but actually able to see future. When I read Revelation, see John talking to a real elder in future, it is simple and logical to see God bringing John into the future. It is a very natural and clear picture of what God does here. OV is the one that tries to render a natural reading impotent in EDF passages. You guys try to explain away John's vision as if it were a hallucination, a fabrication by God, a fictional video tape God made of future etc. You know as well as I the problem with that line of reasoning and it is why OT's continue to squirm and only address the vision so far. It is wholly against a natural rendering of the text.

Ps. 102:27 God's years are endless. This is not a timeless statement.

Ps. 90:2 God is from everlasting to everlasting, endless time, not timelessness. There is a 'before' sequence even for God (creation is not co-eternal).

Rev. 1:4 Tensed expressions are used of God showing past, present, future is not simultaneous in an eternal now for him. God exists in an endless duration of time/sequence/succession. 'Eternal now' is incoherent on all levels.

1000 years=day is perception/perspective, figure of speech, not a literal mathematical equation.

There is time in heaven, the eternal state (I listed the verses previously).

Take these at face value rather than reading vapid, philosophical assumptions to rationalize away the text.

I disagree with your conclusions, which is why I brought them up.

Dispite how incoherent you imagine it: future visions refute God locked into progression. Even "Before Abraham was, I AM" is a statement that refutes a progressive sequence constraint. Even if I do not understand it completely (not being a line, but a segment/ray and only able to comprehend what I experience and can rationalize) it is very clear in scripture that no such constraint exists for God. He is relational to, but not constrained by sequence. That is very clear from scripture to me.

 

[lee_merrill]

God knew that mostly Jews were currently rebellious against God's plan, so He turned to the Gentiles as part of his plan.

This however does not guarantee that more Gentiles than Jews will repent. How could God know this, for people not yet born? for 2000 years even, thus far. Or that any will repent at all, that there will be any people who repent, remember Noah, the last righteous man left at one time.

Later God will turn back to Israel. Once again God will return to their corporate election.

At that time, God will send Isreal through her tribulation destroying those that are ungodly and leaving only the godly left alive as the prophets predicted.

But this does not guarantee that there will be any Jewish believers at all at this time. How could God actually know this? For it is "his sentence on earth," that a remnant of Jewish people would be saved, and without this decision, "we would have been like Sodom," the Jewish nation would have perished, and none would have repented, as in the days of Noah, only without Noah.

Blessings,
Lee

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Uhhhhggg, You've refuted nothing.

On your numberline analogy, there is a beginning point, and I'll leave it up to you to figure that out (but don't hesitate to ask if you need help).

Unbelievable!!! This is how the settled view responds?

Shall we bet on it? I'll mail you my mathematics degree if I'm wrong. But let's say that if you are wrong, you reimburse me the amount of money it takes to get that degree (I'm willing to let you pick any university's tuition you want that offers a master's level mathematics degree -- just because I was foolish enough to attend somewhere perhaps more expensive shouldn't be your problem.) How does that sound?

Lon, you said that something that has no beginning or end cannot have a sequence. You were proven wrong. A real number set
a) has no beginning (it is a line, and by definition has no beginning).
b) has no end (again, as a line, it has no end).
c) yet still has sequence (using a point of origin we can measure anything on that line - something not possible unless it had sequence).

I'm not trying to be tricky. This is basic math Lon.

Here is the point: We both see God as relational to our time sequence, no problem. #'s aren't persons and they don't think for themselves.

So now you are changing your argument to say that a person that doesn't have a beginning or ending can't have sequence (earlier you were saying it was Time that had this limitation)... very well then.

Since we know that other things that have no beginning or end (real numbers) have sequence, by what justification are you saying that something else couldn't have that property?

God wants us to know what is going to happen. There are elders in that vision. John speaks with them. Mere fabrication? An illusion? God dreamed up the scenario but it didn't really happen? Come on, think with me.

So now God can’t even make a vision where people speak? Your great proof that the Book of the Apocalypse is not a vision is that people spoke in it?

Your arguments are getting worse, not better.

Hogwash. "From eternity, to eternity, You are God." "A thousand years is as a day, and a day as a thousand years." "Before He was born, God declared the older would serve the younger." "In 300 years, a son will be born named Josiah and he will put to death the priests of Baal."

How do any of those speak of God outside of time? I mean, if taken woodly literal, none of these speak of God as being outside of time. Not one. You’d have to read something into these passage to get that God is outside of time. No one has to read something into “God waits” to get that God is inside of time.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Which is exactly my point. It renders your following statement false.

No, RobE it doesn't. There is no evidence that Christ had given up on Judas just because He didn't save him. Those are disjointed ideas. It is still a statement by you without any evidence.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

WHY, oh why, must we constantly be considering how man gains knowledge vs. how God has knowledge?

Maybe because that is the debate?

If we didn't consider it (as you suggest) then we would just be making circular arguments (which you seem more than happy to do). The OV says that God also gains knowledge in the method that God sees what is happening.

In other words, God's information is infinitely greater than ours is and so are His guesses. Yet they still are not the Universe's best guesses unless He guesses correctly. God's guesses are not guesses at all. They are Divine Knowledge if they are the Universe's best guesses.

RobE, no one is denying that God's guesses are better than ours. However knowledge about a particular thing is ultimately finite. If it turns out, once you've exhausted all knowledge of a thing that there does not exist enough evidence to tell conclusively one way or another how something will turn out, then even God would not be able to predict it.

So the only question is whether or not this unpredictability is a true thing or not. If it does exist (and I think quantum mechanics at least partly settles this argument in the affirmative), then the idea that many if not most future events are not completely predictable, no matter how much knowledge is available, is a very real possibility.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

This however does not guarantee that more Gentiles than Jews will repent.

It didn't need to. God was turning to the Gentiles whether a greater number of them would repent or not.

But this does not guarantee that there will be any Jewish believers at all at this time.

Seems rather unlikely that not one Jewish believer would exist. I think it is a fairly safe bet, that even a man could make and have a fairly easily probability of success.

If you mean that there is a possibility that God could be disappointed, then we both agree on that, and only need to look to scriptures where God predicted Judah or Israel would repent, and yet they did not, to see other examples where God's predictions go awry.

 

[RobE]

No, RobE it doesn't. There is no evidence that Christ had given up on Judas just because He didn't save him. Those are disjointed ideas. It is still a statement by you without any evidence.

It does unless your contention is Judas could save himself. John 6:44 . Does open theism claim that the salvation process occurs independently of God?

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.)​

 

[RobE]

Maybe because that is the debate?

If we didn't consider it (as you suggest) then we would just be making circular arguments (which you seem more than happy to do). The OV says that God also gains knowledge in the method that God sees what is happening.

Perhaps you should consider the line of thinking which would occur if God knew, based on perfect present knowledge, what would happen in all of creation during the next nanosecond.

RobE, no one is denying that God's guesses are better than ours.

Sure you are. If God doesn't make the Universe's best guess in all situations then a man might; where God failed. This might occur accidentally as an outcome of blind luck; but you are unable to deny that this is one possibility.

If it does exist (and I think quantum mechanics at least partly settles this argument in the affirmative), then the idea that many if not most future events are not completely predictable, no matter how much knowledge is available, is a very real possibility.

If you wish to base your theology on a science created by men, then you might want to review a few scientific theories from the past which didn't turn out that well(i.e. spontaneous generation which was debated for over 100 years). Quantum mechanics isn't defined enough to prove anything.

We accurately predict the proximal future as a common ability. This is more than enough proof that God might do it in an extraordinary way. Where we are limited by our knowledge of the present; He has complete knowledge.