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

[Xmansmommy]

I think we all need to be careful not to allow our modern 21st century definition of the word "omniscience" define biblical principals on God's knowledge. The bible never even uses the word so why are we?

[Xmansmommy]

Do you know what a merism is?

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

Yes, it does. But what you're reading into that is that all things ARE His counsel and His will when the text does not indicate such.

We need to discern when "all" biblically means every last one/item/thing or merely a subset of a bigger group of things.

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

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.

Examples please?

[themuzicman]

I think we all need to be careful not to allow our modern 21st century definition of the word "omniscience" define biblical principals on God's knowledge. The bible never even uses the word so why are we?

Well, the bible does indicate that God is, in fact, omniscient.

[Xmansmommy]

Well, the bible does indicate that God is, in fact, omniscient.

.
I agree. But how the bible depicts God's omniscience should not be restricted to a modern definition of the word that does not match up with the bible's depiction of the concept.

I think we can only use the term in a limited way as it is not how the bible displays God's knowledge or foreknowledge and it is unwise to force the definition used today, onto the text.

That's all I'm saying.

[themuzicman]

.
I agree. But how the bible depicts God's omniscience should not be restricted to a modern definition of the word that does not match up with the bible's depiction of the concept.

I think we can only use the term in a limited way as it is not how the bible displays God's knowledge or foreknowledge and it is unwise to force the definition used today, onto the text.

That's all I'm saying.

True enough.

[RBerman]

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.

I still don't know if you know what a merism is.


The BIble habitually shows God as acting through speech. So when God declares something, God is making it happen. Thus "I will accomplish all my purpose." Your "nothing here about the middle" idea can only be characterized as willful misreading of the text to preserve your unbiblical systematic theology. Do you think that when God created "the heavens and the earth" (the word means "land") he didn't create the water? This is Linguistics 101 stuff.

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.

"Might" in English sometimes implies uncertainty, as in "I might go to the movies tonight, or I might not." But the subjunctive mood (which modifies verbs with words like "may" and "might" and "would" and "should") can simply be used to show causality without uncertainty: "I turned out the lights so it would be dark enough to see the stars." So don't get wrapped up in the uncertainty that "might" sometimes implies. NIV1984 and NET use "would" in this verse. ASV and NKJV use "should." The Greek word in Ephesians 1:12 is just ειναι, meaning "they are," without a connotation of uncertainty. Ephesians 1 is not a passage about uncertainty, but about the certain effects of God's specific plan, hence "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory." (Eph 1:13b-14)

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.

When you're talking about the actions of a group of N people, what you're saying is, "If the chance of each individual person doing the action is x%, then the chance that no one will do the action is (100-x)^N." That number becomes small as N becomes large, but it never reaches zero. So under your system, where God doesn't know for sure that any particular person will do the action in question, God's certainty that someone will do it never reaches 100%. The situation is even worse for small N, such as N=12 in "Will one of these disciples betray me to the Pharisees?", even assuming that all of the disciples are equally disposed to do so.

[themuzicman]

I still don't know if you know what a merism is.

Yes, I do. However, that isn't what's going on, here.

The BIble habitually shows God as acting through speech. So when God declares something, God is making it happen. Thus "I will accomplish all my purpose." Your "nothing here about the middle" idea can only be characterized as willful misreading of the text to preserve your unbiblical systematic theology. Do you think that when God created "the heavens and the earth" (the word means "land") he didn't create the water? This is Linguistics 101 stuff.

Except that you were talking about foreknowledge. So, when you take my comments out of context, and then attack them, you wind up in straw man country.

The point I was making is that God only states that he KNOWS the present circumstance, and he KNOWS the end. The rest is God's omnipotent power accomplishing His purpose.

Thus, in the context of definite foreknowledge there is nothing here about definite foreknowledge of anything in the middle.

"Might" in English sometimes implies uncertainty, as in "I might go to the movies tonight, or I might not." But the subjunctive mood (which modifies verbs with words like "may" and "might" and "would" and "should") can simply be used to show causality without uncertainty: "I turned out the lights so it would be dark enough to see the stars." So don't get wrapped up in the uncertainty that "might" sometimes implies. NIV1984 and NET use "would" in this verse. ASV and NKJV use "should." The Greek word in Ephesians 1:12 is just ειναι, meaning "he/she is," without a connotation of uncertainty. Ephesians 1 is not a passage about uncertainty, but about the certain effects of God's specific plan, hence "Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory." (Eph 1:13b-14)

So, that's why the translator used the ENGLISH translation of "might"? The certainty applies to God's actions, and His actions alone.

When you're talking about the actions of a group of N people, what you're saying is, "If the chance of each individual person doing the action is x%, then the chance that no one will do the action is (100-x)^N." That number becomes small as N becomes large, but it never reaches zero. So under your system, where God doesn't know for sure that any particular person will do the action in question, God's certainty that someone will do it never reaches 100%. The situation is even worse for small N, such as N=12 in "Will one of these disciples betray me to the Pharisees?", even assuming that all of the disciples are equally disposed to do so.

This assumes, of course, that the observer isn't active in bringing at least one of the 12 to this point. Introduce some bias on the part of the observer to bring about that probability rises significantly, an in the case of God, to over 1.

[RBerman]

Yes, I do. However, that isn't what's going on, here.

How about "Alpha and Omega"? Is that a merism, or is that God saying, "I am the beginning and the end, but not the middle" as well? When Jesus talks about the law not passing away until every jot and tittle is fulfilled, does he mean to say that only the fine details will not pass away, but the bigger issues will pass away? I really don't know how you can read "beginning and the end" to mean "beginning and end, but not the middle." The text certainly doesn't exclude the middle.

The point I was making is that God only states that he KNOWS the present circumstance, and he KNOWS the end. The rest is God's omnipotent power accomplishing His purpose.

I don't believe the typical reader would ever come up with that interpretation, unless he had already committed to OVT.

So, that's why the translator used the ENGLISH translation of "might"? The certainty applies to God's actions, and His actions alone.

As I said, "might" in this sort of subjunctive English construction need not imply uncertainty (look through KJV, from which ESV is derived, to see many times that subjunctive "might" is used instrumentally rather than to imply uncertainty), nor do English translators have a consensus that "might" in particular is the best word there, nor is the underlying Greek verb in the subjunctive mood in the first place, nor does the context of Ephesians 1 encourage us to contemplate divine uncertainty but rather points the other way, most especially in the verse immediately preceding.

This assumes, of course, that the observer isn't active in bringing at least one of the 12 to this point. Introduce some bias on the part of the observer to bring about that probability rises significantly, an in the case of God, to over 1.

Probability never exceeds 1 (that is, 100%), by definition. And of course, the Bible never gives us a hint that any of the other 11 disciples had the slightest inclination to get Jesus arrested, if Judas flaked out.

[themuzicman]

How about "Alpha and Omega"? Is that a merism, or is that God saying, "I am the beginning and the end, but not the middle" as well?

This is symbolic language. The context gives us its meaning. Isaiah isn't speaking in symbolism in 46:10.

When Jesus talks about the law not passing away until every jot and tittle is fulfilled, does he mean to say that only the fine details will not pass away, but the bigger issues will pass away? I really don't know how you can read "beginning and the end" to mean "beginning and end, but not the middle." The text certainly doesn't exclude the middle.

It's called "context." Jesus said more than just "jot and tittle" there.

I don't believe the typical reader would ever come up with that interpretation, unless he had already committed to OVT.

I don't believe anyone would read it differently unless they were Calvinist. People don't confuse "declare" with "know", and they don't look at accomplishing a purpose as knowing every detail of what will happen along the way. You need Calvinist colored glasses to read this as you do.

As I said, "might" in this sort of subjunctive English construction need not imply uncertainty (look through KJV, from which ESV is derived, to see many times that subjunctive "might" is used instrumentally rather than to imply uncertainty), nor do English translators have a consensus that "might" in particular is the best word there, nor is the underlying Greek verb in the subjunctive mood in the first place, nor does the context of Ephesians 1 encourage us to contemplate divine uncertainty but rather points the other way, most especially in the verse immediately preceding.

The divine aspect of this verse is certain. God is faithful, and that's the point of this passage. The certainty of God's action with respect to those who believe is evident. And yet Paul sees fit to include this element of possibility, so that people won't interpret the passage as you do.

Probability never exceeds 1 (that is, 100%), by definition. And of course, the Bible never gives us a hint that any of the other 11 disciples had the slightest inclination to get Jesus arrested, if Judas flaked out.

Which is only an argument from silence. The gospels give us some information about Peter, James, John, Andrew and Matthew in addition to Judas. The others are mentioned, but we really know very little about them and where they stood as disciples when Judas betrayed Christ. All of them asked about whether Jesus was going to re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel.

[RBerman]

This is symbolic language. The context gives us its meaning. Isaiah isn't speaking in symbolism in 46:10.

Isaiah 46 (like the whole book) is loaded with symbolic language: Nebo stoops, God has carried Israel, putting salvation in Zion, and so forth. Besides which, the examples given (making a bird fly to a certain place, causing a man to go to a certain place) seem like examples of things happening "in the middle," not the beginning or the end. The whole "beginning and end" metaphor is intended to highlight God's consistency, which is totally lost by inserting "but not in the middle" into the text. But I can see why you wish the text meant that.

I don't believe anyone would read it differently unless they were Calvinist. People don't confuse "declare" with "know", and they don't look at accomplishing a purpose as knowing every detail of what will happen along the way. You need Calvinist colored glasses to read this as you do.

Plenty of non-Calvinists will say that when God declares that something happens, it means that it actually happens. The Hebrew would immediately and inevitably think of passages like Genesis 1. The NT has a lot to say about the power of God's speech as well.

The divine aspect of this verse is certain. God is faithful, and that's the point of this passage. The certainty of God's action with respect to those who believe is evident. And yet Paul sees fit to include this element of possibility, so that people won't interpret the passage as you do.

Your belief in "the element of possibility" in Ephesians 1 is something you systematically bring to the text. It's not found in the Greek and is hardly the best reading even of the English translations which use "might" at all. I guess you didn't look up the way KJV uses "might" in subjunctive mood.

Which is only an argument from silence. The gospels give us some information about Peter, James, John, Andrew and Matthew in addition to Judas. The others are mentioned, but we really know very little about them and where they stood as disciples when Judas betrayed Christ. All of them asked about whether Jesus was going to re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel.

You have backwards which of us is making the argument from silence. The text gives no indication that any of the other disciples had the slightest inclination to get Jesus arrested. There's no evidence of a "Plan B if Judas flakes out is for one of the other disciples (but not any particular one of them) to suddenly turn traitor." Such a thing would be totally out of character from the discussion that goes on in the Upper Room for several chapters in the book of John, and yet by your report God couldn't have been certain that Judas was really going to betray Jesus until he actually did the deed in Gethsemane.

[yxboom]

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.

See http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...11#post3421511

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.

At no point have I argued that God is neither omnipotent or omniscient so to argue otherwise would be foolish, we both agree on this point.

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.

If God could choose to create and interact with other beings that would not require His exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all their freewill choices, I believe it is within His omnipotence and prerogative to do so. To limit God in His creative ability to a standard that we require of an omnipotent and omniscient being is both absurd and unnecessary. If God chose to predetermine all our choices or to exhaustively foreknow (I believe this would be synonymous with the former) I accept His prerogative to do so, but find it unnecessary to insist this is how He must create.

I hope in this may have offered a reasonable foundation argument to explain my position but accept there is much more to explore.

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.

I agree...to an extent, but there is already a great deal being addressed in the previous replies to suffice at this time if that is ok.

[yxboom]

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."

Fair enough. I accept these things are far more of a concern for us moderns than it was for the original audience.

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?

Human accountability I believe is standard freewill debate, nothing unique to open theism. As for which things God knows exhaustively...everything He and all created beings may or may not do.

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

I subscribe to the opinion that the future is partly open and God foreknows it as such. If I were to subscribe to a position of EDF, it is that God exhaustively foreknows that the future is partly open.

[yxboom]

.
I agree. But how the bible depicts God's omniscience should not be restricted to a modern definition of the word that does not match up with the bible's depiction of the concept.

I think we can only use the term in a limited way as it is not how the bible displays God's knowledge or foreknowledge and it is unwise to force the definition used today, onto the text.

That's all I'm saying.

I appreciate what you are saying, as always.

Honestly, I cringe when the debate turns towards what open theism believes about God, when the debate is rooted in what open theism believes about the nature of creation.

[theblueprint_Ni]

If God could choose to create and interact with other beings that would not require His exhaustive definite foreknowledge of all their freewill choices, I believe it is within His omnipotence and prerogative to do so. To limit God in His creative ability to a standard that we require of an omnipotent and omniscient being is both absurd and unnecessary.

I'm not the one putting a limit on God. Time is a reasonable thing to know in all its detail for an infinite being, future or otherwise. I did read the post that you linked, and I'm not missing the point. I get it. If the future doesn't exist as a substance (as opposed to an idea or a set of possible scenarios) then God can't control it. God can't have control where there is no control to be had, therefore only predictions (albeit strongly informed predictions) can be made concerning what will be the present at a later time/. My point is that there is only one other alternative for the how the future comes to be or materializes into what it is in the present: things must happen spontaneously outside of God's control. That's creation ex nihilo. Whether its time, matter, or space, if it "happens" at all outside of God's control, it happens out of nothing and outside of God. Otherwise God creates the present, it doesn't simply come in to being, in which case it's impossible for him not to know the outcome of things because he's the author of every possibility, and nothing can happen as it happens unless he made it to be that way.

If God chose to predetermine all our choices or to exhaustively foreknow (I believe this would be synonymous with the former) I accept His prerogative to do so, but find it unnecessary to insist this is how He must create.

So are you saying (1) that God can know the future exhaustively (or create or govern time in such a way that it has substance) but chooses not to? Or (2) that God can't know the future, because even if He wanted to it's impossible for him to know it?

I hope in this may have offered a reasonable foundation argument to explain my position but accept there is much more to explore.

Yes it is and yes of course.

[yxboom]

I'm not the one putting a limit on God. Time is a reasonable thing to know in all its detail for an infinite being, future or otherwise. I did read the post that you linked, and I'm not missing the point. I get it. If the future doesn't exist as a substance (as opposed to an idea or a set of possible scenarios) then God can't control it. God can't have control where there is no control to be had, therefore only predictions (albeit strongly informed predictions) can be made concerning what will be the present at a later time/. My point is that there is only one other alternative for the how the future comes to be or materializes into what it is in the present: things must happen spontaneously outside of God's control. That's creation ex nihilo. Whether its time, matter, or space, if it "happens" at all outside of God's control, it happens out of nothing and outside of God. Otherwise God creates the present, it doesn't simply come in to being, in which case it's impossible for him not to know the outcome of things because he's the author of every possibility, and nothing can happen as it happens unless he made it to be that way.

ok. Could God sustain time without having to create it moment by moment?

So are you saying (1) that God can know the future exhaustively (or create or govern time in such a way that it has substance) but chooses not to? Or (2) that God can't know the future, because even if He wanted to it's impossible for him to know it?

This is why I think framing the question in regards to God's knowledge tends to complicate things, at least for me. God could have created without risk so that all things are determined and the future would be exhaustively known, but chose not to. God could have created with risk, so that all things are undetermined and the future remains open and could only be exhaustively known as possibilities.

So that beings outside of Himself could freely reciprocate love and to exercise their own liberty, freedom and free wills I believe God created with risk.

Yes it is and yes of course.

great.