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

[yxboom]

Not having full knowledge of the future isn't omnipotence.

Based on?

The future is a certainty in all of its details.

Where did you arrive at this definition?

Not knowing all of those details is being less than omnipotent.

Based on?

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.

So what I read is that you have chosen to redefine these terms and based on your own redefinition, others should comply with your desires and not use these words because it opposes how you have defined them. This is rather arrogant to say the least.

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".

This is an exercise in futility. You define the parameters and when they are challenged you narrow them to a point any response that does not fit your choosing is unacceptable. Littlejoe called it correctly when he said you build up a straw man and knock it down. This is helpful to no one.

God is omniscient knowing all things that are knowable. Should God not know what the color of 8 is, most would not argue that is "limited knowledge".

Another quote from CS Lewis:

Nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

When someone has the coercive power to make another conform to their desires and exercises that power, we call them tyrants.
When someone has the coercive power to make another conform to their desires but restrains their power, we call them humble.

Neither situation is their coercive power "limited" based on the exercising or choosing not to exercise that power.

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

Stripping it from meaning? You seem to compartmentalize God's attributes rather than see them as holistic. God's mercy and grace are expressions of His omnipotence. Removing them from their holistic whole makes it less meaningful, in my opinion.

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.

ok.

[KingsGambit]

If I can come in with another question somewhat along the lines of my first one, would an OVT (by the way, what does the V stand for?) basically believe that God intended for Jesus to make his sacrifice but left the mechanisms of how his death would occur undetermined? Isaiah 53 does seem to predict some very specific details of Jesus's life and death (though I've seen a few Christians argue that that passage isn't messianic at all; I personally think it is).

[theblueprint_Ni]

Based on?

Why do you even ask the question?

Where did you arrive at this definition?

However the future happens, it will happen in one certain way. I'm not talking about what could or might possibly happen, I'm talking about what actually does happen when it happens. Do you think that the future will happen in a multiplicity of ways?

Based on?

Above. We clearly won't come to any agreement if you believe being omnipotent means not knowing the future. How you work this into your schema is a complete mystery to me.

So what I read is that you have chosen to redefine these terms and based on your own redefinition, others should comply with your desires and not use these words because it opposes how you have defined them. This is rather arrogant to say the least.

How I define them? Not really. We are talking about "omnipotence" right? Did you have something else in mind? Sticking to the standard definition of a word is hardly arrogant. But paint me whatever color you like, if it suits you.

This is an exercise in futility. You define the parameters and when they are challenged you narrow them to a point any response that does not fit your choosing is unacceptable. Littlejoe called it correctly when he said you build up a straw man and knock it down. This is helpful to no one.

You're the one coming from left field, not me. The parameters I've mentioned are basic. It's the default position. It's your responsibility to justify a deficient use of the word. If you don't like that burden then use a different term to describe your views.

God is omniscient knowing all things that are knowable. Should God not know what the color of 8 is, most would not argue that is "limited knowledge".

The color of 8 isn't knowable because it has no property of color. The question itself is absurd. Do you think knowing the future is absurd? Is God a being subjected to time in your view?

When someone has the coercive power to make another conform to their desires and exercises that power, we call them tyrants.
When someone has the coercive power to make another conform to their desires but restrains their power, we call them humble.

Neither situation is their coercive power "limited" based on the exercising or choosing not to exercise that power.

What does this prove? That God knows the future but limits himself to not know the future? That doesn't fit with the idea that the future is unknowable like the color of 8. Did you mean something else?

Stripping it from meaning? You seem to compartmentalize God's attributes rather than see them as holistic. God's mercy and grace are expressions of His omnipotence. Removing them from their holistic whole makes it less meaningful, in my opinion.

Ok, sure, I guess everything falls under the umbrella of omnipotence. When Jesus walked from city to city, he was exercising his omnipotence. If he does anything at all, it's a work of his omnipotence. For the sake of dialogue you have to make distinctions or we won't get anywhere. For instance, you have to talk about God's mercy differently than you would talk about God's justice.

[theblueprint_Ni]

(by the way, what does the V stand for?)

V=View

I'm guessing it's because using the acronym as you normally would (OT=Open Theism) can too easily get mixed up with referencing the Old Testament (OT), so we use OVT (Open View Theism).

[Chrawnus]

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.

The bolded is only necessarily true if the future actually has a independent existence. People like me, who hold to presentism (i.e the view that the present is the only moment of time that exists and that the past and the future are just concepts in our head which do not correspond to anything in reality) do not have to believe that every thing in the future is set in stone. And if you have that view of time you do not need to believe that God necessarily has to know the future exhaustively in order to be omnipotent, because there is no actual future to know, only potential futures.

[KingsGambit]

V=View

I'm guessing it's because using the acronym as you normally would (OT=Open Theism) can too easily get mixed up with referencing the Old Testament (OT), so we use OVT (Open View Theism).

Makes sense, and it's especially helpful on message boards where "OT" also stands for "off topic".

[yxboom]

Why do you even ask the question?

I would like to know how you arrive at the conclusion that omnipotence requires full knowledge of the future.

However the future happens, it will happen in one certain way. I'm not talking about what could or might possibly happen, I'm talking about what actually does happen when it happens. Do you think that the future will happen in a multiplicity of ways?

Is it necessary for you to view the future as concrete as the present?

Above. We clearly won't come to any agreement if you believe being omnipotent means not knowing the future. How you work this into your schema is a complete mystery to me.

How I define them? Not really. We are talking about "omnipotence" right? Did you have something else in mind? Sticking to the standard definition of a word is hardly arrogant. But paint me whatever color you like, if it suits you.


You're the one coming from left field, not me. The parameters I've mentioned are basic. It's the default position. It's your responsibility to justify a deficient use of the word. If you don't like that burden then use a different term to describe your views.

I accept and use the standard definition of omnipotence as being:

almighty or infinite in power, as God.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.

are these agreeable definitions?

The color of 8 isn't knowable because it has no property of color. The question itself is absurd. Do you think knowing the future is absurd? Is God a being subjected to time in your view?

I think imputing a qualifier into omnipotence or omniscience; specifically, exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future is absurd and unnecessary.

What does this prove? That God knows the future but limits himself to not know the future? That doesn't fit with the idea that the future is unknowable like the color of 8. Did you mean something else?

You assume the premise that the future exists to be known in the way the present is and discredit open theism based on how you frame the future, not because of a fault in open theism.

Ok, sure, I guess everything falls under the umbrella of omnipotence. When Jesus walked from city to city, he was exercising his omnipotence. If he does anything at all, it's a work of his omnipotence. For the sake of dialogue you have to make distinctions or we won't get anywhere. For instance, you have to talk about God's mercy differently than you would talk about God's justice.

I don't see how this follows, but I also don't see the value in challenging it so do as you will.

[yxboom]

If I can come in with another question somewhat along the lines of my first one, would an OVT (by the way, what does the V stand for?)

Open view theism, I suspect the "view" was attached to the label based on some propenents regarding the counter view as "classical/settled view" but none of the leading proponents of open theism ever refer to their view as "open view theism" or themselves as "open view theist". Probably way more answer than your question desired.

basically believe that God intended for Jesus to make his sacrifice but left the mechanisms of how his death would occur undetermined?

Correct.

Isaiah 53 does seem to predict some very specific details of Jesus's life and death (though I've seen a few Christians argue that that passage isn't messianic at all; I personally think it is).

There are many messianic prophecies that Jesus fulfilled. I would challenge you to consider; although they were fulfilled, it was not necessary that they had to be fulfilled.

Consider for instance (as relevant to our discussion):

Psalm 41:8

“He has some fatal disease,” they say.
“He will never get out of that bed!”
9 Even my best friend, the one I trusted completely,
the one who shared my food, has turned against me.

v. 9 is said in the gospels as Jesus fulfilling this Scripture. We are unaware of v. 8 ever being spoken of Jesus, but should He had suffered this way, we very well would have. Prophecy isn't God's newspaper of tomorrow for us to read today, but it is realizing the full meaning of what God had inspired by the original words. So v.9 was fully realized through Jesus when He was betrayed by Judas. As to whether it was necessary, I would suggest, no.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I would like to know how you arrive at the conclusion that omnipotence requires full knowledge of the future.




Is it necessary for you to view the future as concrete as the present?

It's because the future is a fact that will certainly happen. Let me make a distinction. If the future has substance, let's say that it's set in stone (predestined, if you will). If it has no substance, let's say that it's because only the present has substance because it actually happened or occurred in reality. For discussion purposes, I am not saying that it's necessary for the future to have substance in order for God to know it. So, even if the future has no substance, the promise is certain that there will be one and only one future (when it becomes the present, say next week, when next week actually comes it comes in only one way). In other words, there won't be two futures that become the present simultaneously, just like there is only one present right now. There will be only one future and it is certain that the future will come (the future won't not happen). Therefore, there is a set of facts that God is unable to attain, and the only way for God to know them is to wait and to discover what things turn out to be. I cannot believe that. God doesn't discover things, he makes things what they are. The future doesn't just happen spontaneously outside of God's control or come into existence apart from him. Where does time come from, how does the future approach, and how does the present move forward into becoming the future. Who governs these things, who makes the rules of time, and how does any of it come to be or that time should exist at all, whether past present or future? Nothing can possibly happen, whether the passing of time, the idea of the future and the mechanisms that govern them outside of God's control. There can't be such a thing as a set of possibilities from God's perspective. Possibilities are sets of circumstances that depend on how they interact with the rules which govern reality. Who made those rules and why are they there? If not God then who? I can't believe that these things operate of their own accord or happen spontaneously outside of God. It's impossible.

I accept and use the standard definition of omnipotence as being:

almighty or infinite in power, as God.
having very great or unlimited authority or power.

are these agreeable definitions?

Sure, and now it comes down to qualifying that, which we are both attempting to do. I happen to think that you shoulder the burden of proof because God knowing the future flows naturally from the idea of omnipotence.

I think imputing a qualifier into omnipotence or omniscience; specifically, exhaustive definite foreknowledge of the future is absurd and unnecessary.

And I believe it's necessary as a matter of God's being that he know the future exhaustively. I don't see how it's absurd. I'd like to see a well presented argument to explain the absurdity of knowing the future exhaustively.

You assume the premise that the future exists to be known in the way the present is and discredit open theism based on how you frame the future, not because of a fault in open theism.

If the future didn't exist in some regard then there could be no passing of time. The fact that time flows is enough. If things happened spontaneously outside of God's control then I'd agree with you. I believe it's impossible for things to happen spontaneously outside of God's control. Things can't create or happen unless God was involved.

[RBerman]

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

It seems like a reasonable request, but it's actually difficult to fulfill. First, the Bible does not use terms like EDF; it speaks in general of the exhaustive and definitive nature of God's knowledge (e.g. Isaiah 46:9; Ephesians 1:11), but when making specific claims about the future, it doesn't stop in the moment and say, "And God possesses EDF about this circumstance."

Second, OVT proponents, while united in their general belief that God doesn't hold us accountable for evil things that he knew (with EDF) that we would do, seem to disagree about what specific evil things God knew (with EDF) would happen. The usual OVT line is that God has EDF about some things but not others. But which are which?

So, are there any places in the Bible that you are willing to accede that God displays EDF?

[Chrawnus]

It's because the future is a fact that will certainly happen. Let me make a distinction. If the future has substance, let's say that it's set in stone (predestined, if you will). If it has no substance, let's say that it's because only the present has substance because it actually happened or occurred in reality. For discussion purposes, I am not saying that it's necessary for the future to have substance in order for God to know it. So, even if the future has no substance, the promise is certain that there will be one and only one future (when it becomes the present, say next week, when next week actually comes it comes in only one way). In other words, there won't be two futures that become the present simultaneously, just like there is only one present right now. There will be only one future and it is certain that the future will come (the future won't not happen). Therefore, there is a set of facts that God is unable to attain, and the only way for God to know them is to wait and to discover what things turn out to be. I cannot believe that. God doesn't discover things, he makes things what they are. The future doesn't just happen spontaneously outside of God's control or come into existence apart from him. Where does time come from, how does the future approach, and how does the present move forward into becoming the future. Who governs these things, who makes the rules of time, and how does any of it come to be or that time should exist at all, whether past present or future? Nothing can possibly happen, whether the passing of time, the idea of the future and the mechanisms that govern them outside of God's control. There can't be such a thing as a set of possibilities from God's perspective. Possibilities are sets of circumstances that depend on how they interact with the rules which govern reality. Who made those rules and why are they there? If not God then who? I can't believe that these things operate of their own accord or happen spontaneously outside of God. It's impossible.

Just because there's only one future does not mean that it can't happen in multiple possible ways. And God doesn't have to know how the future will look in order to have control over it, if by having control one means that God allows the future to happen, or that He's the one who sets and keeps time in motion.

But even so, your objection that God needs to be in control of the future misses the point from a presentist point of view, because in that view the future doesn't actually exist and as such there can be no "future" to be in control over.

[themuzicman]

It seems like a reasonable request, but it's actually difficult to fulfill. First, the Bible does not use terms like EDF; it speaks in general of the exhaustive and definitive nature of God's knowledge (e.g. Isaiah 46:9; Ephesians 1:11), but when making specific claims about the future, it doesn't stop in the moment and say, "And God possesses EDF about this circumstance."

Actually Isaiah 46:9 only talks about the end and the beginning, not the middle.

Eph 1:11 speaks of things that no longer require an overt act of the believer.

Second, OVT proponents, while united in their general belief that God doesn't hold us accountable for evil things that he knew (with EDF) that we would do, seem to disagree about what specific evil things God knew (with EDF) would happen. The usual OVT line is that God has EDF about some things but not others. But which are which?

God has EDF about things that don't involve human will. God foreknows what stars will supernova and when. God foreknows that He will raise those who die believing in Him to eternal life. God foreknows that a rock I drop from the edge of the Grand Canyon will hit the ground.

So, are there any places in the Bible that you are willing to accede that God displays EDF?

I think God knows with certainty what groups of humans (like the nation of Israel) will do corporately, even without knowing which individuals will do what. Given a certain cultural propensity, large groups of humans are fairly predictable, even to us mere humans.

[RBerman]

Actually Isaiah 46:9 only talks about the end and the beginning, not the middle.

Do you know what a merism is?

Eph 1:11 speaks of things that no longer require an overt act of the believer.

It says God works "all things" according to the counsel of his will.

God has EDF about things that don't involve human will. God foreknows what stars will supernova and when. God foreknows that He will raise those who die believing in Him to eternal life. God foreknows that a rock I drop from the edge of the Grand Canyon will hit the ground.

So you are in the class of OVTers who deny that God ever has EDF with regard to human choices. OK.

I think God knows with certainty what groups of humans (like the nation of Israel) will do corporately, even without knowing which individuals will do what. Given a certain cultural propensity, large groups of humans are fairly predictable, even to us mere humans.

This is the kind of statement that gives OVTers a reputation for saying that God is a good guesser, even though they always deny that statement summarizes their beliefs.

[themuzicman]

Do you know what a merism is?

Do you know what "declare" means?

Isa 46

“Remember this and stand firm,
recall it to mind, you transgressors,
9 remember the former things of old;
for I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me,
10 declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done,
saying, ‘My counsel shall stand,
and I will accomplish all my purpose,’

There isn't anything here about knowledge at all. God states that He knows the present condition, and He knows how He is going to make things work out in the end, because He declares it. Nothing here about the middle.

It says God works "all things" according to the counsel of his will.

Keep reading:

Eph 1

11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.

Sounds like God works do that we might be something. Doesn't sound very definite. It seems as through "God works all things" is referring to His works in all circumstances.

Unless you're going to say that God works all things, but there is some uncertainty as to whether He will succeed.

So you are in the class of OVTers who deny that God ever has EDF with regard to human choices. OK.

That's me.

This is the kind of statement that gives OVTers a reputation for saying that God is a good guesser, even though they always deny that statement summarizes their beliefs.

Guessing implies that there is no involvement or real knowledge to base one's guess upon. There is simply no basis to say that God does not have sufficient present knowledge in this circumstance to know in general what a group of people is going to do without knowing which individuals will do what.

[Xmansmommy]

Actually Isaiah 46:9 only talks about the end and the beginning, not the middle.

Amen, Michael! Not to mention, the end from the beginning of God's purposes, God's counsel and God's prophetic plans. In the case of Isaiah 46 it is namely, the judgment and ultimately the salvation of His righteous covenant people, NOT every detail of every moment in history. And certainly not, every choice and action human beings will make. There is a tremendous difference between the two.

Eph 1:11 speaks of things that no longer require an overt act of the believer.



God has EDF about things that don't involve human will. God foreknows what stars will supernova and when. God foreknows that He will raise those who die believing in Him to eternal life. God foreknows that a rock I drop from the edge of the Grand Canyon will hit the ground.

Well said!

I think God knows with certainty what groups of humans (like the nation of Israel) will do corporately, even without knowing which individuals will do what. Given a certain cultural propensity, large groups of humans are fairly predictable, even to us mere humans.

And even moreso when He spends thousands of years in relationship with them (Israel) and warning them that one of the dangers of breaking their covenant with Him would result in their collective blindness as well as the salvation of a remnant. It's not really that difficult to know a group of people intimately when you're their God, is it? Jus sayin!