Open theism and Jesus's prediction of Judas's betrayal

[footwasher]

I think Greg Boyd posits history to be a play, narrative. God has the script, men fill the roles. Some are vessels of honour, some dishonour. If we cleanse ourselves of worldly vices, we get slotted into the good parts. Peter and Judas were both accused by Satan of being unfit... Would make a good study to find out why Peter made the cut.

[yxboom]

This is one of hundreds of Biblical examples where the premeses of Open Theism throw God's sovereignty into confusion. OVT teaches that we can't be morally accountable for things that happen necessarily, and that if God has exhaustive, definitive foreknowledge (EDF) of some particular sin, then it happens necessarily, and therefore we are not morally accountable for any sin of which God has EDF. OVT proponents are quick to point out that they don't require all human actions to be exempt from EDF. But they're still left with the Biblically problematic notion that God doesn't hold us responsible for things that he knew (with EDF) we would do.

This issue is hardly unique to open theism or any views regarding human responsibility. This is how we prefer to address this tension that is described in Scripture, you prefer otherwise. You want to paint this as confusing God's sovereignty, I would suggest you confuse reality, but what would be the point in that?

You raise a valid objection, although this tension remains with any view valuing free will. That a loving, sacrificial Creator would desire (so a Scripture could be fulfilled?) and predestine Judas (or anyone past, present or future) to destruction causes concern. If this is a choice He chooses to make, so be it. But I would prefer not to live in some delusion that you or I, are anyone else will not share Judas' fate. There does not appear any indication that Judas believed his intentions were demonic, and if his fate was eternally sealed before his birth, so is ours. If it were not for the Holy Spirit offering insight into the spiritual reality that Satan took hold of Judas we would never know otherwise.

I think Greg Boyd posits history to be a play, narrative. God has the script, men fill the roles. Some are vessels of honour, some dishonour. If we cleanse ourselves of worldly vices, we get slotted into the good parts. Peter and Judas were both accused by Satan of being unfit... Would make a good study to find out why Peter made the cut.

They both were rebuked, Satan desired them both and they both betrayed Jesus. Judas' testimony would have been great and quite possibly a greater witness than Paul (who was guilty of spilling the blood of Christ's body) but thats just speculation. What is certain is that Judas would have found the same forgiveness Peter (and Paul) did and experienced the same agape love from Jesus.

[Littlejoe]

This is one of hundreds of Biblical examples where the premeses of Open Theism throw God's sovereignty into confusion. OVT teaches that we can't be morally accountable for things that happen necessarily, and that if God has exhaustive, definitive foreknowledge (EDF) of some particular sin, then it happens necessarily, and therefore we are not morally accountable for any sin of which God has EDF. OVT proponents are quick to point out that they don't require all human actions to be exempt from EDF. But they're still left with the Biblically problematic notion that God doesn't hold us responsible for things that he knew (with EDF) we would do.

I don't see how God's sovereignty is thrown into confusion, but, even if it is...is God's Sovereignty an essential or necessary aspect of God's Character? I submit it is not...If it is, then God is not in fact self-contained and creation is necessary and no longer contingent.

Let me explain:

1) God pre-existed. There was only the triune God and there was nothing which was created.

2) Then the earth was created and all with it.

God CANNOT be sovereign in 1) since there is nothing to be sovereign OVER. Thus, if sovereignty is an essential part of God's character, God was unfulfilled in 1). It was not until 2) that God is able to be sovereign. Thus, if sovereignty is an essential part of His character, creation is necessary.

However, if sovereignty is NOT essential, then creation is contingent.

In other words, you made the same mistake that Piper makes in chapter 1 of Desiring God, you magnify sovereignty and thus destroy aseity.

LJ

[RBerman]

This issue is hardly unique to open theism or any views regarding human responsibility. This is how we prefer to address this tension that is described in Scripture, you prefer otherwise. You want to paint this as confusing God's sovereignty, I would suggest you confuse reality, but what would be the point in that?

You raise a valid objection, although this tension remains with any view valuing free will. That a loving, sacrificial Creator would desire (so a Scripture could be fulfilled?) and predestine Judas (or anyone past, present or future) to destruction causes concern. If this is a choice He chooses to make, so be it. But I would prefer not to live in some delusion that you or I, are anyone else will not share Judas' fate. There does not appear any indication that Judas believed his intentions were demonic, and if his fate was eternally sealed before his birth, so is ours. If it were not for the Holy Spirit offering insight into the spiritual reality that Satan took hold of Judas we would never know otherwise.

I appreciate the problem of the tension between divine sovereignty and human free will and accountability. That's precisely the problem with OVT, which denies that God holds men accountable for anything which he definitively foreknew. It provides an answer to the mystery, but an unsatisfactory one.

[RBerman]

I don't see how God's sovereignty is thrown into confusion, but, even if it is...is God's Sovereignty an essential or necessary aspect of God's Character? I submit it is not...If it is, then God is not in fact self-contained and creation is necessary and no longer contingent. Let me explain:

1) God pre-existed. There was only the triune God and there was nothing which was created.
2) Then the earth was created and all with it.

God CANNOT be sovereign in 1) since there is nothing to be sovereign OVER. Thus, if sovereignty is an essential part of God's character, God was unfulfilled in 1). It was not until 2) that God is able to be sovereign. Thus, if sovereignty is an essential part of His character, creation is necessary.

However, if sovereignty is NOT essential, then creation is contingent.

In other words, you made the same mistake that Piper makes in chapter 1 of Desiring God, you magnify sovereignty and thus destroy aseity.

We must be using different definitions of sovereignty if you think that God wasn't sovereign before he created the universe. My definition of sovereignty is essentially omnipotence; God can do whatever he wants to do. Thus no one can stop him, though obviously that aspect of sovereignty doesn't come into play until there's a "someone else" that God has created.

[Littlejoe]

We must be using different definitions of sovereignty if you think that God wasn't sovereign before he created the universe. My definition of sovereignty is essentially omnipotence; God can do whatever he wants to do. Thus no one can stop him, though obviously that aspect of sovereignty doesn't come into play until there's a "someone else" that God has created.

I think you stretch "sovereignty" beyond all bounds of credibility with that statement...but be that as it may, if in your definition sovereignty means omnipotence, (as it relates to God) Again, explain how God's Omnipotence is "thrown into confusion" by Christ prediction and Judas' fulfillment of the betrayal, as explained by XY, Xmansmommy, or myself?

BTW, do you ascribe to the Omnipotence = all powerful without any restraints? Or the all powerful that is logically possible?
IOW's do you believe God can make round squares and triangles with no angles? Can God lie? Can God sin?

LJ

[theblueprint_Ni]

You raise a valid objection, although this tension remains with any view valuing free will. That a loving, sacrificial Creator would desire (so a Scripture could be fulfilled?) and predestine Judas (or anyone past, present or future) to destruction causes concern. If this is a choice He chooses to make, so be it. But I would prefer not to live in some delusion that you or I, are anyone else will not share Judas' fate. There does not appear any indication that Judas believed his intentions were demonic, and if his fate was eternally sealed before his birth, so is ours. If it were not for the Holy Spirit offering insight into the spiritual reality that Satan took hold of Judas we would never know otherwise.

Some people have a greater fear over different things. I fear much more the idea that God isn't omnipotent more than the idea that God predestines. I don't see how loosening omnipotence from the attributes of God creates a more optimistic view of reality. A God who isn't in complete control is a God liable to error. That doesn't seem to be a good solution to the problem.

I think you stretch "sovereignty" beyond all bounds of credibility with that statement...but be that as it may, if in your definition sovereignty means omnipotence, (as it relates to God) Again, explain how God's Omnipotence is "thrown into confusion" by Christ prediction and Judas' fulfillment of the betrayal, as explained by XY, Xmansmommy, or myself?

I think it's your original argument about the incredibility of sovereignty that misconstrues what it really is. Having nothing to be sovereign over doesn't negate the fact that God is sovereign (i.e. having ultimate control). That's like saying I don't have hands because I'm not holding anything. Being sovereign isn't merely an exercise, it's an essential characteristic. I'm using the term sovereignty as a natural extension of omnipotence. The OV perspective confuses the prediction because it makes it out to be a prediction--or a likely projection of possible outcomes--and not a prophecy. God isn't a gambler and doesn't guess at possible outcomes. That's not what it means to be the Alpha and Omega.

[yxboom]

I appreciate the problem of the tension between divine sovereignty and human free will and accountability. That's precisely the problem with OVT, which denies that God holds men accountable for anything which he definitively foreknew. It provides an answer to the mystery, but an unsatisfactory one.

Please provide an example, because it looks like you are producing a false dilemma.

[RBerman]

I think you stretch "sovereignty" beyond all bounds of credibility with that statement...but be that as it may, if in your definition sovereignty means omnipotence, (as it relates to God) Again, explain how God's Omnipotence is "thrown into confusion" by Christ prediction and Judas' fulfillment of the betrayal, as explained by XY, Xmansmommy, or myself?

BTW, do you ascribe to the Omnipotence = all powerful without any restraints? Or the all powerful that is logically possible?
IOW's do you believe God can make round squares and triangles with no angles? Can God lie? Can God sin?

Obviously we can use language to construct nonsensical word combinations which have no bearing on God's actual omnipotence. As best I can tell, all of those are dispensed with by the definition I used, that God can do whatever he wants. Since sin is a violation of God's commands, the question about God sinning is at worst nonsensical and at best answered that by definition (of sin) God never wants to sin. As to whether God lies, the Bible does show some times that God intends for people to believe things that are false, and does things to bring that circumstance about.

As for Judas: When Jesus said that one of the disciples would betray him, did he say that with EDF, or not?

[Littlejoe]

Some people have a greater fear over different things. I fear much more the idea that God isn't omnipotent more than the idea that God predestines. I don't see how loosening omnipotence from the attributes of God creates a more optimistic view of reality. A God who isn't in complete control is a God liable to error. That doesn't seem to be a good solution to the problem.

But, the OV view strengthens God's omnipotence IMO, not loosens it...and I realize you were responding to XYboom, but you ignored my relevant questions concerning the omnipotence of God. Let me repost them for you:

Omnipotence = all powerful without any restraints? Or the all powerful that is logically possible?
IOW's do you believe God can make round squares and triangles with no angles? Can God lie? Can God sin?

I think it's your original argument about the incredibility of sovereignty that misconstrues what it really is. Having nothing to be sovereign over doesn't negate the fact that God is sovereign (i.e. having ultimate control). That's like saying I don't have hands because I'm not holding anything. Being sovereign isn't merely an exercise, it's an essential characteristic. I'm using the term sovereignty as a natural extension of omnipotence.

What a pitiful analogy, that totally misses....A more proper analogy would be me proclaiming that I am King and the Sovereign authority of Outer Western Deermania. Now who and what am I truly sovereign over? Who are subject to my absolute rule?

The OV perspective confuses the prediction because it makes it out to be a prediction--or a likely projection of possible outcomes--and not a prophecy. God isn't a gambler and doesn't guess at possible outcomes. That's not what it means to be the Alpha and Omega.

You're using a strawman understanding of OVT and then knocking it down...nowhere has anyone proposed God as "guessing" at the outcome of the betrayal. Please show me who said that, because I must have missed it. Otherwise you are simply assuming a conclusion that has no basis. If Judas had suddenly truly believed before the cup dipping episode, Jesus would have known and God would have used someone else to betray Jesus. There was no guessing involved.

LJ

[yxboom]

Some people have a greater fear over different things. I fear much more the idea that God isn't omnipotent more than the idea that God predestines. I don't see how loosening omnipotence from the attributes of God creates a more optimistic view of reality.

I don't know of any open theist who would argue that God is somehow "less" omnipotent than any alternative view. There is a miscommunication if you think otherwise.

G.B Caird (who I do not believe held to an open theist view) expresses "omnipotence" perfectly when he wrote

Omnipotence is not to be understood as the power of unlimited coercion, but as the power of infinite persuasion, the invincible power of self-negating, self-sacrificial love.

That is the definition of omnipotence I see in Jesus as He chose to allow Himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross.

A God who isn't in complete control is a God liable to error. That doesn't seem to be a good solution to the problem.

Let me offer you a snippet of CS Lewis' book Problem of Pain in response,

http://www.pc-freak.net/files/ProblemOfPain.pdf PDF version

Problem of Pain

The inexorable "laws of Nature" which operate in defiance ofhuman suffering or desert, which are not turned aside by prayer,seem, at first sight to furnish a strong argument against thegoodness and power of God. I am going to submit that not evenOmnipotence could create a society of free souls without at thesame time creating a relatively independent and "inexorable"Nature.There is no reason to suppose that self consciousness, the recognition of a creature by itself as a "self", can exist except incontrast with an "other", a something which is not the self. It isagainst an environment, and preferably a social environment, anenvironment of other selves, that the awareness of Myself standsout. This would raise a difficulty about the consciousness of God ifwe were mere theists: being Christians, we learn from the doctrineof the Blessed Trinity that something analogous to "society" existswithin the Divine being from all eternity - that God is Love, notmerely in the sense of being the Platonic form of love, but because,within Him, the concrete reciprocities of love exist before all worldsand are thence derived to the creatures.

© source where applicable

All of Chapter 2 addresses the problem of suffering in light of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator... really good stuff.

[Carrikature]

TIf it were not for the Holy Spirit offering insight into the spiritual reality that Satan took hold of Judas we would never know otherwise.

Can someone please explain where this idea comes from? This is the first I've heard of it.

[RBerman]

If Judas had suddenly truly believed before the cup dipping episode, Jesus would have known and God would have used someone else to betray Jesus. There was no guessing involved.

Speaking of guessing... how can you know such a thing? Whatever mechanism Judas would use to disqualify himself could disqualify everyone else too.

[yxboom]

Can someone please explain where this idea comes from? This is the first I've heard of it.

We are provided by the gospel authors some valuable insight into the events of the last supper that Satan had direct involvement in Judas' act of betrayal:

Luke 22:3 Then Satan entered Judas, called Iscariot, one of the Twelve.

and

John 13:27 As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.
So Jesus told him, “What you are about to do, do quickly.”

I subscribe to Scriptural inspiration, and without the revelation offered to the reader by such verses as above, we can conclude that Judas betrayed Jesus but Satan's involvement could only be conjecture.

I don't believe this suggestion is novel or even debated, but I dare not be so presumptuous.

[theblueprint_Ni]

But, the OV view strengthens God's omnipotence IMO, not loosens it...and I realize you were responding to XYboom, but you ignored my relevant questions concerning the omnipotence of God. Let me repost them for you:

Omnipotence = all powerful without any restraints? Or the all powerful that is logically possible?
IOW's do you believe God can make round squares and triangles with no angles? Can God lie? Can God sin?

It wouldn't be wrong to say that I ignored them, but it wouldn't be right either. I didn't think it would be helpful to respond to those questions so I chose not to address them. A yes or no would fuel something that I didn't want to be distracted by. Maybe you think differently. That's OK.

What a pitiful analogy, that totally misses....A more proper analogy would be me proclaiming that I am King and the Sovereign authority of Outer Western Deermania. Now who and what am I truly sovereign over? Who are subject to my absolute rule?

I'm sorry you didn't like my analogy. Let me tray again. You gave the logic of your argument several posts above. If I could paraphrase, sovereignty isn't a necessary attribute of God because it requires that the sovereign have objects apart from itself for which to exercise control. My response is that sovereignty is just another word to describe his omnipotence. You distracted the subject matter, perhaps unintentionally, by focusing on the verbal implications of the word "sovereignty" as a non-reflexive action and pointing out that it requires direct objects. My analogy was supposed to reel the subject back in and return to the question of what it means for God to be omnipotent. I guess it just wasn't effective to that end. RB said originally that OVT throws the sovereignty of God into confusion because it distorts the meaning of His omnipotent nature. Then you took a detour about the word sovereignty outside of the context which RB was using it. It was, again, probably unintentional on your part. Therefore, I said that the sovereignty of God (as it was being used in this discussion) is an essential characteristic, not a contingent attribute. That's why RB was quick to respond by saying that you must be using a different definition for the theological use of the word "sovereignty".

You're using a strawman understanding of OVT and then knocking it down...nowhere has anyone proposed God as "guessing" at the outcome of the betrayal. Please show me who said that, because I must have missed it. Otherwise you are simply assuming a conclusion that has no basis.

Predicting is another form of guessing. If it isn't predestined, it's necessarily predicted. Maybe the connotations of "guessing" lean more in favor of the uniformed kind of predicting. I'll try to be more sensitive to the views of OVT.

If Judas had suddenly truly believed before the cup dipping episode, Jesus would have known and God would have used someone else to betray Jesus. There was no guessing involved.

So what are you saying here? That a betrayer was predestined, but the person taking the role wasn't? If so, you're only moving the problem up one step and saying that God knows a whole lot, but not quite enough to know who the betrayer would actually be. That can't be classified as omnipotence in any regard. If not, please give a little more detail about what you're trying to say.

I don't know of any open theist who would argue that God is somehow "less" omnipotent than any alternative view. There is a miscommunication if you think otherwise.

Not having full knowledge of the future isn't omnipotence. The future is a certainty in all of its details. Not knowing all of those details is being less than omnipotent. There is no other word to describe having all power and by extension all knowledge other than "omnipotent". It is the loftiest word in our vocabulary to max out that concept. OVT does not meet the criteria of the proper use of the word. I wish they would use something else.

G.B Caird (who I do not believe held to an open theist view) expresses "omnipotence" perfectly when he wrote

OK, but that doesn't speak to the problem of God's limited knowledge. Pretty much what I get from this is that the best way to describe "all power" is "limited power".

That is the definition of omnipotence I see in Jesus as He chose to allow Himself to be beaten and nailed to a cross.

That's more like mercy and grace. We're getting too expansive on the word and stripping it from meaning.

Let me offer you a snippet of CS Lewis' book Problem of Pain in response,

http://www.pc-freak.net/files/ProblemOfPain.pdf PDF version

Problem of Pain

The inexorable "laws of Nature" which operate in defiance ofhuman suffering or desert, which are not turned aside by prayer,seem, at first sight to furnish a strong argument against thegoodness and power of God. I am going to submit that not evenOmnipotence could create a society of free souls without at thesame time creating a relatively independent and "inexorable"Nature.There is no reason to suppose that self consciousness, the recognition of a creature by itself as a "self", can exist except incontrast with an "other", a something which is not the self. It isagainst an environment, and preferably a social environment, anenvironment of other selves, that the awareness of Myself standsout. This would raise a difficulty about the consciousness of God ifwe were mere theists: being Christians, we learn from the doctrineof the Blessed Trinity that something analogous to "society" existswithin the Divine being from all eternity - that God is Love, notmerely in the sense of being the Platonic form of love, but because,within Him, the concrete reciprocities of love exist before all worldsand are thence derived to the creatures.

© source where applicable

All of Chapter 2 addresses the problem of suffering in light of an omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator... really good stuff.

I don't think I will agree with a lot of CS Lewis' theology, though I can't say that I've read much of his literature. He's good on some things, bad on others. My problem with OVT is that it tries to answer the questions that really don't have good answers, but tries anyway, and produces deficient responses.