ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 3

[godrulz]

Omniscient only if it doesn't interfere with man's free will. :devil:

God sovereignly chose a non-deterministic universe with free moral agents. This led to a voluntary self-limitation of exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Likewise, the incarnation was a voluntary self-limitation of the Word's omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence (veiling of humanity led to limitations not experienced in pre-existence).

Free will is necessary for love, relationship, responsibility, etc., a higher good than robotics, despite the risk. It is not an end in itself nor a usurping of God's sovereignty (he can squash Satan and us like a bug if he wants to).

At this point, I don't think you understand the issues surrounding this debate.

 

[genuineoriginal]

You offered nothing there that tells us WHY the Lord Jesus would predict that Peter would deny Him three times. On what basis do you think Christ made that prediction? Please be specific.

John 14:27-29 27Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. 28Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. 29And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.​

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

I want to know your opinion as to "how" the Lord Jesus was able to predict that Peter would deny him three times.

I say that is was through Foreknowledge.

Greg Boyd says God is able to predict one's future actions by knowing perfectly a person's character.

I want to know your opinion as to "how" the Lord Jesus was able to predict Peter's future actions.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, the test was genuine. God knows the heart and mind perfectly since it is present/past knowledge. He also knows to a high degree of probability many aspects of the future. In the case of a test, He knows the heart and mind, but this does not mean that any given test in a moment will certainly turn out one way or other.

Earlier you sent me a link of Greg Boyd saying the following about Peter's three denials:

"I suspect that anyone who knew Peter’s character perfectly could have predicted with certainty that under certain circumstances he would act cowardly."

If Boyd is right, then since God knew Abraham's character perfectly then He could have predicted with certainty that Abraham would pass the test. However, the narrative in regard to the test shows that God did not know beforehand what Abraham would do and therefore God only knew that he would pass the test when he drew back the knife to slay Isaac.

Why was the divine knowledge of a person's character effective for predicting the future in Peter's case but ineffective for Abraham?

How do you explain that?

 

[godrulz]

Earlier you sent me a link of Greg Boyd saying the following about Peter's three denials:

"I suspect that anyone who knew Peter’s character perfectly could have predicted with certainty that under certain circumstances he would act cowardly."

If Boyd is right, then since God knew Abraham's character perfectly then He could have predicted with certainty that Abraham would pass the test. However, the narrative in regard to the test shows that God did not know beforehand what Abraham would do and therefore God only knew that he would pass the test when he drew back the knife to slay Isaac.

Why was the divine knowledge of a person's character effective for predicting the future in Peter's case but ineffective for Abraham?

How do you explain that?

High probability can be almost certainty without it being certain. In Peter's case, there was some orchestration (cue the rooster, etc.). Abe was a genuine test and stands on its own. It shows something to Abe and it is still genuine because there was a possibility of failure. There also was not a prediction tied to that event like Peter's. Perhaps Boyd's answer is too Molinistic (middle knowledge), but it is plausible. So, the two events are not identical and differ in explanation to some degree. I suppose I would have to concede that Peter might have done the right vs wrong thing making Christ's words inaccurate, but this is not how it panned out, so it is moot. Knowing the heart and circumstances and influencing the latter must have made it a virtual certainty.

For the record, Judas was not predicted to be the betrayer before he was born. At the time Jesus said he was, it was present knowledge, not future foreknowledge.

 

[Lon]

If God does not see these things, He cannot judge them (the Word is explicit that every thought, motive, act will be judged). You wrongly think that God cannot handle it because you cannot. He sees evil as do many men who are around it. He does not have to obsess about it, stare at it, but if He is omniscient, He must be aware fully of it, every detail (since men or Satan can be).

You have an assumption, not something that can be defended biblically or logically (beg the question). Few Open Theists would agree with this Enyart error.

This is correct, but stay consistent and take your own advice:

....there was still 1% chance of the person acting out of character/expectation.

"Yeah, that's scriptural and no assertion or guess upon the scriptures..."

 

[Nang]

High probability can be almost certainty without it being certain.

There is no such thing as "almost certainty."

That is nonsensical double-speak . . .

Nang

 

[Nang]

Free will is necessary for love, relationship, responsibility, etc.

I disagree.

God's willingness to extend grace to undeserving sinners is what is necessary for love, relationship, responsibility, etc.

Nang

 

[Bright Raven]

God sovereignly chose a non-deterministic universe with free moral agents. This led to a voluntary self-limitation of exhaustive definite foreknowledge. Likewise, the incarnation was a voluntary self-limitation of the Word's omnipresence, omniscience, omnipotence (veiling of humanity led to limitations not experienced in pre-existence).

Free will is necessary for love, relationship, responsibility, etc., a higher good than robotics, despite the risk. It is not an end in itself nor a usurping of God's sovereignty (he can squash Satan and us like a bug if he wants to).

At this point, I don't think you understand the issues surrounding this debate.

I'm beginning to think you do not know what you're talking about. I don't agree that God is not totally omniscient. I believe that He can be and that man can still have free will.
Who are you to say that I do not understand God's attributes. At least I do not limit that which is limitless.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I want to know your opinion as to "how" the Lord Jesus was able to predict that Peter would deny him three times.

I say that is was through Foreknowledge.

Greg Boyd says God is able to predict one's future actions by knowing perfectly a person's character.

I want to know your opinion as to "how" the Lord Jesus was able to predict Peter's future actions.

Two main factors were at play in the prophecy of Peter's rejection.

One of those factors was God's knowledge of a person's character, which is used to estimate the likelyhood of the person's future actions and reactions. The more complete the knowledge, the more accurate the predictions can be, but only up to a point where the likelyhood of two or more actions have significant probabilities. Because of this, God was able to predict accurately how Peter would likely react under the right circumstances.

The second of those factors is the power of God which was able to conceive of the universe ex nihlo, create the universe, set up all the laws regulating the interactions of energy and matter, molecule and complex organisms, and animal instinct and rational thought. God used this power to create the prophecy and afterwards to set up the three circumstances where it was most likely for Peter to deny Jesus in order to fulfill the prophecy.

There is no compelling reason to believe that God conceived the idea of having Jesus prophesy that Peter would deny Jesus three times before the **** crowed at any time prior to Peter's declaration that he would not be offended.

So, the timeline of the prophecy is this:

1. Peter said he would not be offended.
2. God looked into Peter's heart and saw that Peter would deny Jesus under the right circumstances.
3. God had the Holy Spirit give the words of the prophecy to Jesus.
4. Jesus spoke the prophecy.
5. God had the Holy Spirit move in the people around Jesus to set up at least 3 scenarios where Peter was most likely to deny Jesus.
6. He probably had a few additonal scenarios set up in other locations in case Peter went there instead. (The group of Roman Soldiers down the street, etc.)
7. Jesus was captured and beaten.
8. The Holy Spirit moved in the roosters so they could not crow.
9. The Holy Spirit moved in Peter so he followed Jesus to see what was happening to Him.
10. This brought Peter into sight of the crowd that were beating Jesus and the sight of the other bystanders.
11. The Holy Spirit moved in one bystander, a woman, so she recognized Peter and spoke out.
12. Peter denied Jesus and fled to the porch where another group of people were gathered.
13. The Holy Spirit moved in another bystander, a man, so he recognized Peter and spoke out.
14. Peter denied Jesus and moved away.
15. After a while, the Holy Spirit moved in the crowd of people that had heard Peter deny Jesus earlier so they recognized his accent as being from Nazareth and they spoke out.
16. Peter denied Jesus a third time.
17. The Holy Spirit released the hold on the voices of the roosters and moved one of them to crow.

Here is the difference between the different views:

• Your view is that God saw everything that happened beforehand and no one, not Jesus, not Peter, not God Himself, could change what God saw.
• Boyd's view is that Peter's character determined his actions, and Peter had no choice but to act according to his character and deny Jesus, but this still doesn't expain how the prophecy of him denying Jesus three times would be fulfilled. (I haven't read Boyd, so he may have been able to explain it.)
• My view is that though Peter's character determined the likelyhood of his actions, God's creativity and power was responsible for the prophecy and the fulfillment, showing that God is able to work anything for His purposes, but it does not mean God'd only option is to work everything in existence in order to fulfill His prophecies.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I suppose I would have to concede that Peter might have done the right vs wrong thing making Christ's words inaccurate, but this is not how it panned out, so it is moot.

No, it is not moot.

If you are right then the Lord Jesus would have known that there was a possibility that his prophecy concerning Peter might prove to be inaccurate. With that in view then He would have never uttered those words. After all, if you are right He would have known that if Peter did not deny Him three times that night then His credibility among his disciples would have been irreparably damaged and many would question whether or not He was a false prophet.

The Lord Jesus would never make such a prophecy unless He knew for certain that it will come true and the only way that He could be one hundred percent certain was because of foreknowledge.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Here is the difference between the different views:

• Your view is that God saw everything that happened beforehand and no one, not Jesus, not Peter, not God Himself, could change what God saw.
• Boyd's view is that Peter's character determined his actions, and Peter had no choice but to act according to his character and deny Jesus, but this still doesn't expain how the prophecy of him denying Jesus three times would be fulfilled. (I haven't read Boyd, so he may have been able to explain it.)
• My view is that though Peter's character determined the likelyhood of his actions, God's creativity and power was responsible for the prophecy and the fulfillment, showing that God is able to work anything for His purposes, but it does not mean God'd only option is to work everything in existence in order to fulfill His prophecies.

I found the link to Boyd's explanation, and he seems to have much the same opinion on the prophecy as I do, except his explanation seems to be trying to explain the prophecy without divine intervention, while my explanation relies on divine intervention.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I found the link to Boyd's explanation, and he seems to have much the same opinion on the prophecy as I do, except his explanation seems to be trying to explain the prophecy without divine intervention, while my explanation relies on divine intervention.

Boyd certainly does not say that there was absolutely no divine intervention, as witnessed by his words here:

Perhaps some providential intervention was necessary to have the **** crow immediately after Peter’s third betrayal in order to drive home the point of Jesus’ prophecy (Matt. 26:74–75), but that is certainly an easy feat for the sovereign Lord of history...Finally, little if any divine intervention would be necessary to ensure that three people would notice and question Peter about his relationship with the Lord.

Boyd's explanation as to 'how" the Lord Jesus could predict Peter's actions in the future is very similiar to yours, which is:

God looked into Peter's heart and saw that Peter would deny Jesus under the right circumstances.

Since God could look at Peter's heart and determine Peter's actions in the future under the right circumstances then why couldn't He be able to do the same thing in regard to Abraham and the "test" concerning his son Isaac?

 

[godrulz]

There is no such thing as "almost certainty."

That is nonsensical double-speak . . .

Nang

High probability is almost certainty. It is almost certain that my short post will not have spelling mistakes, but once in awhile, my brain does their vs there, etc. and not caught by spellchecker before my eyes.

It is almost certain that I will eat today, go to the bathroom, sleep, go to work tomorrow, drink water, etc. (as per the last numerous days), yet there is a remote possibility I will die, be killed, the Second Coming will happen, I will get sick and not go to work or eat, etc. I also may have a tragedy that robs me of sleep. So, it is common to recognize that almost certain/normative/high probability is still not the same as actual, certain after the fact. The future is partially open, but you refuse to admit this despite living your life every moment as if the theory is true that you reject.

 

[godrulz]

I disagree.

God's willingness to extend grace to undeserving sinners is what is necessary for love, relationship, responsibility, etc.

Nang

Since love is impartial, universalism should be true. He does extend grace to sinners, but irresistible grace is an oxymoron. Rejecting a provision or gift does not negate the intention or efficacy of the gift for those who receive vs reject it.

We are not robots. You have a wrong paradigm that negates the image of God.

 

[godrulz]

I'm beginning to think you do not know what you're talking about. I don't agree that God is not totally omniscient. I believe that He can be and that man can still have free will.
Who are you to say that I do not understand God's attributes. At least I do not limit that which is limitless.

God is totally omniscient, ignorant of nothing, knowing all that is knowable. The issue is that somethings are not there to know. The fact that God does not know where Alice in Wonderland is does not mean His omniscience is limited. The objects of possible knowledge are the limitation, not the knowledge of God.

If you think God can create square circles because that would limit the limitless, then I cannot help you (you have an incoherent, indefensible assumption leading to wrong conclusion).

 

[godrulz]

No, it is not moot.

If you are right then the Lord Jesus would have known that there was a possibility that his prophecy concerning Peter might prove to be inaccurate. With that in view then He would have never uttered those words. After all, if you are right He would have known that if Peter did not deny Him three times that night then His credibility among his disciples would have been irreparably damaged and many would question whether or not He was a false prophet.

The Lord Jesus would never make such a prophecy unless He knew for certain that it will come true and the only way that He could be one hundred percent certain was because of foreknowledge.

We say and do things that are almost certain to happen without EDF. God has also made statements that were later no longer true since contingencies changed (Hezekiah).

There is less mystery and problems with the Open view overall than deterministic views that blatantly impugn His character and ways due to evil. The Peter objection must be responded to, but you have far more bigger issues that undermine your view that are better answered by alternate views.

 

[john w]

High probability can be almost certainty without it being certain. In Peter's case, there was some orchestration (cue the rooster, etc.). Abe was a genuine test and stands on its own. It shows something to Abe and it is still genuine because there was a possibility of failure. There also was not a prediction tied to that event like Peter's. Perhaps Boyd's answer is too Molinistic (middle knowledge), but it is plausible. So, the two events are not identical and differ in explanation to some degree. I suppose I would have to concede that Peter might have done the right vs wrong thing making Christ's words inaccurate, but this is not how it panned out, so it is moot. Knowing the heart and circumstances and influencing the latter must have made it a virtual certainty.

For the record, Judas was not predicted to be the betrayer before he was born. At the time Jesus said he was, it was present knowledge, not future foreknowledge.

The problem is that this is a false view that you can safely reject making way to adopting a more biblical, balanced, credible, orthodox, scholarly view. You are proof texting an idiom as a wooden literalism to retain your wrong preconceptions. You are ignoring context to import preconceived idea (eisegesis), etc. Your shallow understanding of other views is indefensible, odd, and no credible, balanced, orthodox, traditional, mainstream, etc., scholar has your view on their radar. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Watch your semantics. Your view is more problematic, incoherent than you realize. I repeat this because you don't get it due to sectarian bias.


(Genesis-Revelation, etc.)

What was the topic?

 

[Nang]

God is totally omniscient, ignorant of nothing, knowing all that is knowable.

God is totally omniscient, ignorant of nothing, even knowing the unknowable.

The issue is that somethings are not there to know. The fact that God does not know where Alice in Wonderland is does not mean His omniscience is limited.

The fact that you can refer to Alice is admission she is knowable. And God with certainty (not probability) knows she is nowhere because He knows she is a product of human imagination, much like your religion.

The objects of possible knowledge are the limitation, not the knowledge of God.

Can you cite a real example of an "object of possible knowledge?"

Can you define an actual "almost certainty?"

 

[Nang]

God has also made statements that were later no longer true since contingencies changed (Hezekiah).

Are you claiming that God has made untrue statements?

There is less mystery and problems with the Open view overall than deterministic views that blatantly impugn His character and ways due to evil.

You honestly believe your remark above does not impugn the character of God Almighty?

The Peter objection must be responded to, but you have far more bigger issues that undermine your view that are better answered by alternate views.

AMR has answered the "Peter objection" numerous times, but you and others have obviously not learned from his wisdom and his explanation.

Too bad . . . an unnecessary thread could have been avoided.

Nang