How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

[Nick M]

I'm not sure that's what "lower than the angels" means,

He came without all of his power. He spoke the universe into existence. And didn't take the power with him into Mary's womb. The Holy Spirit gave him power that he, the Holy Spirit and the Father decided he needed.

 

[Nick M]

'could of', 'would of', 'should of' and 'if only'

The late Bob Enyart talked about the garden once on his TV show in Denver. It was mostly politics, very little theology. Anyway, some sanctimonious clown said the same thing and he said

Given man's track record

Regarding the inevitable. How would you do?

 

[Nick M]

I think you can rethink whether you're really Open, given the bold above.

That isn't knowing the future. He brought the animals to Adam to see what Adam would call them.

4 “Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place, because they have burned incense in it to other gods whom neither they, their fathers, nor the kings of Judah have known, and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents 5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

He could not believe they would do such a thing.

I will back up to Genesis. Because you are evil (you don't change your mind, you are evil) this is for others.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Feel free to try and explain away what the prophets say.

 

[way 2 go]

4 “Because they have forsaken Me and made this an alien place, because they have burned incense in it to other gods whom neither they, their fathers, nor the kings of Judah have known, and have filled this place with the blood of the innocents 5 (they have also built the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings to Baal, which I did not command or speak, nor did it come into My mind),

He could not believe they would do such a thing.

that just says don't blame G-d for this either

I will back up to Genesis. Because you are evil (you don't change your mind, you are evil) this is for others.

5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

Feel free to try and explain away what the prophets say.

G-d knew from the foundation that he would die for sin , grieved when when it happens, yes
surprised by it , no
(Revelation of John 13:8) And all dwelling on the earth will worship it, those whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world

and created an earth with a flood reset to start the next dispensation.

and G-d knows

(Revelation of John 9:18-21) [18] By these three the third part of men was killed, by the fire, and by the smoke, and by the brimstone which issued out of their mouths. [19] For their authority is in their mouth and in their tails. For their tails were like serpents with heads, and with them they do harm. [20] And the rest of the men who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and golden, and silver, and bronze, and stone, and wooden idols (which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk). [21] And they did not repent of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts.

 

[Lon]

My point was that "all things" in Peter's mind didn't have to include all things past present and future for all humans past present and future. It might just mean "You know all that's in my heart, good and bad."

Remember again, that was after His resurrection.

 

[Lon]

What does the context tell us? Does my view or your view better fit the narrative?

Jesus knew he was about to be betrayed, and He knew that Judas was going to be the one to do it.
He knew that Peter would likely follow the soldiers as they took Him before the authorities.
Jesus knew the area, and He knew that His arrest would probably gather a crowd.
Jesus knew that Peter's face would be well known, since he was often if not always by His side during His ministering.

Do you disagree with any of that?

Yes, but we aren't talking about a best guess, we are talking about prophecy in which Jesus couldn't be wrong.

Do you think, maybe, that Jesus didn't need to know the future, but rather is really good at looking at the current circumstances,

No. It just doesn't make sense to even entertain the idea. 3 times and a rooster crowing. Can God 'make' that happen? Sure, but we aren't given that as anywhere near evident. In fact, it'd mean Peter had no freewill if shoved up against that kind of thinking. He'd have been 'made' to deny 3 times exactly.

and could easily foresee a situation where Peter's identity is called into question, even multiple times,

Specifically three, and a crow, and a foretelling of his eventual death (all of their deaths but one). We cannot believe God is making that happen, or He is the One putting them to death. It is much more intuitive to see "Lord You know all things" as omnipotent.

and, knowing Peter (because he had just spent the last three years living with him), that he would deny his affiliation with Him, because that's the kind of person Peter was? Because Peter, despite his cowardice, was still loyal to Christ?

You are limiting Him to 'human' possibility. He was man and God.

Did you notice that in Matthew 26:56, it says that the disciples "forsook Him and fled"?!

Yes.

They weren't prepared to go up against the Roman army.

Peter was trying, looking for some desperate way, yes? No?

They weren't prepared for Jesus to be captured and to be put to death (even though Jesus had told them that He must die multiple times, yet they didn't understand). They didn't understand what was going on.

"He did not 'guess' it'd be three times"

Good. Why 'three?'

Nowhere have I used the term "guess."

But it is intimated by your suggestion that Jesus just 'knew' it'd be three times and then a rooster would crow.

So, if not a good informed 'guess' what are you suggesting? What kind of 'prediction?' Able to be wrong as Lamerson suggests?

God makes predictions many times in the Bible.

And, here is the thing, all that are given as prophecy all come true. In fact, it is the mark of whether a prophet is from God or not. If it doesn't come true, they were to be put to death. Note that the test is exactly that God has told them what is going to happen and as such, it surely must come to pass. There is no out. True, unfailing prophecy is the only way. Truly (and I know we differ greatly), no prophecy has ever went unfilled, nor can any future prophecy ever go unfulfilled.

He OFTEN makes prophecies (which are predictions, not guarantees) that He hopes will not come to pass, and even tells the people concerned that they should change so as to avoid the outcome.

I couldn't disagree more adamantly. No prophecy ever, has went unfulfilled. Such cannot happen, by God's own given standard.
Briefly, it has to do with confusing conditional promise as 'a prophecy.' Not true. So in addition to prophecy, unconditional promises also are always fulfilled with no exception.

Jesus telling Peter that he would deny Him three times before the changing of the guard (the "crow of the rooster") was, aside from it being a statement of how quickly Peter would deny Him, after making such a bold claim that he (and the other disciples too) would never abandon Him, was a WARNING! It was a warning just like God gave Nineveh, "In forty days Nineveh will be destroyed!" Yet by forty days later, Nineveh had repented, and so God spared her from destruction.

Such is conditional. Ninevah's demise was to be in forty days, clearly with repentance upon the table. They repented: conditional.

Peter, unfortunately, did not heed the warning, until it was too late.

So which is it, Lon?

Does Jesus need to know the future? Or can He make accurate predictions based on present knowledge, and based on His relationships with people? Was Jesus stating the future, or was He warning Peter to guard his heart so that He doesn't deny the One whom he loves and claimed he would never abandon?

Foreknowledge. Your idea is convoluted and doesn't match up with the passage. Did Jesus tell Peter to 'guard his heart' after the 'warning?' :nono: Matthew 26:34 Jesus said to him, Truly I say to you that this night, before the cock crows, you shall deny Me three times.
No "so guard your heart" stated here. In fact, Jesus was repeating prophecy: John 6:39

This is exactly what I'm talking about, Lon.

You are completely incapable of seeing it any other way.

It cannot be any other way.

It is very hard to shift one's perspective away from the paradigm one holds to. Most people are never able to. I pray it is not the case with you.

Thank you.

Forget "taking off the glasses," Lon, you have your eyes glued to a microscope focused SOLELY on that sentence. You cannot seem to pull yourself away from the microscope long enough to get the big picture.

What does the context say? Do you know what the context is? How does the context affect what the passage says?

Tell us what the context is. The immediate context, within the passage. The context of the narrative within the four gospels. The context within the story of the Bible.

Can you do that?

Here is the context:

Is that what it says?

Or did you miss something?

Because I think you missed something important.

I think you missed the whole point!

Ditto.

Why? Because you're so laser-focused on demonstrating omniscience in the text, that you completely overlook what the passage is trying to teach!

I don't believe it is at all, a 'guard your heart' passage. Jesus gave a fact.

ChatGPT - Peter's Death and God's Glory

Shared via ChatGPT

chatgpt.com

Saying it doesn't make it so.

God said it. It makes it so.

About what, specifically?

Peter was just confronted, in a very intimate setting, about his love for his Lord.

"Peter, do you agape Me?"
"Yes Lord, you know I phileo You."
"Feed My lambs. . . . Peter, do you agape Me?"
"Yes Lord, you know I phileo You."
"Shepherd My sheep. . . . Peter, do you phileo Me?"

What does it say Peter's response was to that?

It says Peter was grieved, because Christ used "phileo" instead of "agape"!

"Peter, do you love Me?" "I adore you Lord." ...
"Peter, do you Adore me?"
Whatever the significance, it is important that it was three times:
John 21:17 He said to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me? Peter was grieved because He said to him a third time, Do you love Me? And he said to Him, Lord, You know all things, You know that I love You. Jesus said to him, Feed My sheep.

"Lord, you know all things, you know I phileo you."
"Feed My sheep."

This isn't some doctrinal statement Peter is making.

Jesus is asking if he loves Him.

Peter responds that He knows him completely, that Peter loves Him.



If I'm pot, then you're kettle.

This disagreement stands as the full difference.

Except that the plain reading of the text doesn't allow for your view, while I'm simply letting the context dictate what Peter is talking about.



What glasses?

I'm telling you to take OFF the glasses you're wearing.

I didn't say put another pair on.

Let me put it this way:

If you have surgery to remove something in your eye that is hindering your vision, do you replace it with something else? Or do you take that thing that hinders your vision out of your eye and replace it with nothing?

That's what I'm telling you to do.

Take off the "omniscience" lenses.

Don't put any other lenses on.

The passage demands something near...

Read the text. Read the context. Let the context determine the meaning of what the text says.



Repeating your false witness won't make it not a sin, Lon.

Explaining what the passage says isn't "song and dance," no matter how much you cry about it.



Oh, really?

Because as far as I can tell, I'm the only one between the two of us who has considered the context of what Peter says.

Did you? All of it?

All you can do is repeat over and over "Lord you know all things" as though it somehow establishes your position, and you completely ignore everything I've said so far.

Yes, it is either you or God on point. I have asked, in good faith, if Open ideas 'can' fit and the answer after all these years is still "no."

That's because you didn't actually take off the lenses.

Taking off the lenses and replacing them with other lenses won't work, obviously.

The problem is simply this: I wear glasses. Do they help me see? Absolutely. If whatever postulations we use, makes clear sense of the text, they may very well be the best glasses for reading.

But you have to first start by taking off the lenses you have on. Something you haven't done yet.



You're saying the God of the universe, who is infinitely wise, is incapable of predicting what someone will do a few hours before he does it, without having to make him do it?

Yes, because it leaves Him in 'prediction' that 'can be wrong.' Jesus said "Truly." That's an absolute.

What kind of incompetant, insecure god do you believe in!?

I don't. I think He is omniscient, remember? I'm saying rather, there are few alternatives against that and neither a best guess (prediction) nor making the events happen, fit the Truly/verily context given. So neither. There are only so many ways such can play out, and none but omniscience makes sense. Simply, if God ever predicts or guesses, there is no reason, ever, for a prophecy that can fail. "Just don't do it if You don't know" which is never intimated in scripture. Omniscience is very intuitive from scriptures on point.

Because it's CLEARLY not the God of the Bible!

Prophecies are predictions, Lon. They are POSSIBLE futures.

Cannot be. If such were true, there is never, ever, a reason to give a 'best guess/prediction.' "I think" I know how JR will respond. Does that mean you don't have to now? Not at all, and I've just wasted space for saying it. Such makes very little sense and adds not much to any conversation. A best guess may have you betting with Jimmy the Greek, but it doesn't mean you are going to be rich. Then, if a prophet speaks from God, and God can be wrong, we still put the prophet to death. IOW, the very test is that it must necessarily come true. Were prophets just betting their lives? Doesn't seem tenable for an Open View postulation. It just doesn't fit what we know.

They are not guarantees of anything except of the outcome ONLY IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT CHANGE. If the circumstances change, then all bets are off!

Again, not true with unconditional promise nor unconditional prophecy. This doesn't 'divide' rightly.

We see this REPEATEDLY throughout the Bible!

Take Jonah!

God told Nineveh "40 days, and you will be destroyed."

Jonah finally made it there three days after he was told to go, and started preaching. 40 days later, and Nineveh was NOT destroyed, why? Because God hopes that His prophecies of judgement will fail! Because He cares more about the RESPONSE to the prophecy than He does the prophecy coming true!

Jeremiah 18:8 very long time before Nineveh.

Jesus prophesied that Peter would deny Him three times before 3 AM. It's not a hard prediction for God to make, ESPECIALLY since He just spent the last three years getting to know the guy!

Use your God-given brain for once, Lon!

Its working.

Think!

Do you think Jesus would have been happy or sad if Peter had NOT denied Him three times?

Wasn't possible. Wasn't a prediction.

I think He would have been OVERJOYED!

Or do you think it was eternally necessary for Peter to deny his Creator three and exactly three times!?

It was necessary specifically because Jesus said it would happen. There is no 'able to be wrong' on point.

RIGHT BACK AT YOU!

You seriously need to take a good hard look at what it is you're saying, to see if it ACTUALLY comports with scripture, or if it's just you reading your beliefs into the text!

Omniscience is very much a scriptural given.

That explains nothing. All you're doing is repeating what the text says as though that alone is enough to prove your position.



What a pitiful attempt at an explanation.

Yes, Peter was spontaneous. He wasn't good at thinking things through. He acted out, often rashly. It doesn't mean he wasn't originally a coward.

Remember, he along with the rest of the Disciples forsook Christ and fled!

That's something you do if you're a coward who doesn't have the conviction of his beliefs... which is entirely my point. Jesus knew Peter. He knew Peter did not have the conviction of his beliefs. He knew Peter acted tough, but inside he wasn't courageous enough to stand up for what he believed in. The later passage in John is Jesus guiding him into a more steadfast belief, and Peter was grieved because he knew Jesus was right! He knew EVERYTHING ABOUT PETER!



I don't have glasses on. I mean, I do, literally, I'm nearsighted in both eyes, thus I wear glasses. But I'm not wearing any theological glasses here. I'm simply letting the text say what it says, in the context that it says it.



Because you still have Calvinist lenses on.

That'd be 'making an event happen.' I realize Open Theists tie omniscience to determinism, but I don't see it that way. Seeing is just 'seeing.'

Supra. It wasn't just "do you love me" "yes" "care for my flock" repeated three times.



One pair. Yours. You should take them off, so that you can see scripture clearly.



As if I wouldn't want that...



God can't force you to see things differently, Lon.

Not even with Paul.

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."



And?

Context shows us that "panta" isn't always used to refer to all things without exception, but often all things within a limited scope. (Cf. John 4:29; 1 John 2:20)

See the ChatGPT link.



Yet you haven't been able to address ANY of it. You've only evaded my points, because you HAVE NO ARGUMENT against what I'm saying.

I realize you 'think' that. We literally are against one another, see things near completely opposite.

You were and have not repented of it.



The Bible is a thick book, it's thickness is proportional to the thickness of our skulls.

Sometimes the things scripture is teaching are more complex than just "See, it says 'Lord you know all' things" therefore God must be omniscient!" and require more explanation, especially when the person one is talking to refuses to see it any other way than his preferred reading.



You mean like with 1 John 2:20, where it says that men know all things?

Yeah, you still haven't properly dealt with that one.



So, because it says your favorite phrase, therefore it must mean what you say it means?

Because when we read even just the verses that surround that phrase, we see John is talking about God knowing people's HEARTS!

He didn't stop just to make a didactic statement about how God knows literally everything!

But you have to rip that phrase out of its context because "Lon can't be wrong, because it says '[God] knows all things,' so therefore God MUST be omniscient YAY!"



Where have I ever said it was a figure of speech?

As far as I can remember, I have ALWAYS stated that it was SPECIFICALLY talking about God knowing people's hearts. Does that make it a figure of speech on my view? And if so, SO WHAT?! THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT THE CONTEXT INDICATES!



Or you can take the glasses off entirely. But you're too scared to do so.



I'm not wearing glasses. I'm simply looking at the context of these passages and seeing, clear as day, that you, Lon, have to force your beliefs onto the text in order to make them say what you want them to say. Look, I can put your glasses on, and see not only THAT you see it saying "God is ommniscient, but also WHY you think it says that.

But because I've seen the scripture WITHOUT glasses on, I know WHY interpreting it the way you want to interpret it is wrong, because I can clearly see that the glasses you have on prohibit you from looking at the context of the verse. They give you tunnel vision, so that you can only see the verses that confirm your beliefs.

It's called "confirmation bias."



Open Theism isn't a cult. Shame on your for trying to poison the well.

Also, that's an appeal to popularity.

Just because some people don't see it the way OTs do doesn't mean OT is wrong or that they're right.

Stop ignoring the points I'm making. Stop ignoring the context of the verses you keep bringing up as prooftexts.

Peter was acknowledging Jesus' ability to see his heart, rather than making a borad metaphysical claim, which is how you're trying to read it.

Prior to denying Christ, Peter was overconfident. He thought he knew himself well enough to stay faithful under pressure. But Jesus' prediction, which was based on His relationship with him, not through some abstract concept of omniscience, was based on knowing Peter deeply. He knew how Peter would respond to fear and pressure, leading to his denials. Thus, when Jesus confronts him later, in John 21, Peter is recogninzing and acknowledging that Jesus knows his heart and true intentions, despite his past failures. Again: Jesus knew Peter better than Peter did.

Jesus' knowledge is relational rather than abstract foreknowledge. He knows people intimately, and understands how they will respond in given situations. Once you realize that, the need for God to be omniscient goes away entirely, because His predictions ccan rest on what He knows about people, because it's easy to predict what people will do if you know their hearts, even more so if He has a relationship with them!

Instead of viewing Jesus' words as a fied foretelling of inevitable events, they should be understood in light of His perfect wisdom and deep understanding of human nature, especially that of His disciples. Thus, when Peter says, "Lord, you know all things," he isn't making a doctrinal statement about Jesus being omniscient, but rather is acknowledging Jesus' ability to see through pretense, His understanding of Peter's true devotion (agape versus phileo) despite his past failure, and that Peter has learned to trust Jesus' knowledge of him more than his own self-assessment.

But sure, if you want to insist that the passage is saying "God is omniscient," then just continue to ignore all of that. Just don't expect to grow in your understanding of Him.

Not without a convoluted hard song and dance, no.

 

[JudgeRightly]

good faith

Good faith?

You call this "good faith"?



Yeah right.

Welcome back to my ignore list.

 

[Clete]

He came without all of his power. He spoke the universe into existence. And didn't take the power with him into Mary's womb. The Holy Spirit gave him power that he, the Holy Spirit and the Father decided he needed.

I'm not convinced that this is so. He spoke and the wind and waves obeyed Him. People were healed by merely touching the hem of the garment He was wearing. In fact, with only a very few exceptions all of His miracle were performed without anything other than the expression of His will.

It seems that there wasn't much missing in terms of power at all. It was the glory that He had shared with the Father that He had shed (John 17:5).

I'm not saying you're entirely wrong here though! It's just that it gets rather difficult to discern with any certainty because, as you say, the Holy Spirit gave Him power that He, the Holy Spirit, and the Father decided He needed. Notice all the capital "H"s in that sentence! Where does the Holy Spirit end and the Father or the Son begin? They are indeed three persons but still One and only One God.

I guess my point here is simply that I think we ought to avoid being too dogmatic about issues such as this.

 

[Derf]

Remember again, that was after His resurrection.

I doubt that Peter was basing it on some kind of knowledge added at His resurrection. More likely is that Peter was remembering Jesus' words before the denial, which was your point earlier, if I remember correctly.

And if he was remembering the former words, which were about love (or lack thereof), then Peter would be unsure of himself, his own agape love for Jesus, because it was demonstrated false prior to the resurrection. Peter seemed eager to confirm his phileo love when Jesus asked about agape, and still tell the truth. So when Jesus changed words, Peter felt the sting. The whole conversation, as you pointed out, was based on the previous events, and as such, it seems unlikely that Peter was attaching exhaustive knowledge to Jesus, only knowledge about Peter's commitment to Him.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I doubt that Peter was basing it on some kind of knowledge added at His resurrection. More likely is that Peter was remembering Jesus' words before the denial, which was your point earlier, if I remember correctly.

And if he was remembering the former words, which were about love (or lack thereof), then Peter would be unsure of himself, his own agape love for Jesus, because it was demonstrated false prior to the resurrection. Peter seemed eager to confirm his phileo love when Jesus asked about agape, and still tell the truth. So when Jesus changed words, Peter felt the sting. The whole conversation, as you pointed out, was based on the previous events, and as such, it seems unlikely that Peter was attaching exhaustive knowledge to Jesus, only knowledge about Peter's commitment to Him.

Well said!

Lon's response: "But somehow, he must be saying God is omniscient, right? RIGHT!? ..... Right......?"