God_Is_Truth
New member
4th century is new?
no, it's that many people are calvinists just because they were raised in it. we believe the open view is more biblical and we are passionate about the truth of God.
Is Calvinism Right?
- Thread starter Exegete
- Start date
4th century is new?
no, it's that many people are calvinists just because they were raised in it. we believe the open view is more biblical and we are passionate about the truth of God.
Exhaustive foreknowledge is not taught in Scripture but of course the Trinity is and so I see your point. I'm not suggesting that one has to completely understand everything about a particular topic before accepting it as true. What I am saying is that the Bible and the true doctrines therein are not logically incoherent; they are not self contradictory, they do not beg the question, or engage any other fallacy of logic. If they did, then they are not true at all regardless of how well we understand them, for all truth is logical.
If God's foreknowledge was like your knowledge of the future rising of the sun then I would agree that there is nothing that would hinder our freedom, but it is not the same. The first reason you've pointed out yourself. God's foreknowledge as presented by Calvinism is not merely a prediction as your knowledge of the rising sun is, it is firm knowledge. Firm knowledge and free will cannot coexist because for freedom to be real there must be an ability to do, or to do otherwise. If God's knowledge of the future is firm and what He knows will happen, cannot not happen (sorry about the double negative there), then there is no possibility of my doing otherwise, and so my freedom is an illusion.
The second reason your rising sun example doesn't work is because the sun is an inanimate object with no will to begin with free or otherwise. God can very easily know absolutely what an inanimate object will do in the future. All He would have to do is follow the causal chain of events to whatever point in the future He wanted to know about and as long as there was no possibility of a free will agent changing something in that causal line then His knowledge would be quite absolutely firm and certain. It is only when we are talking about creatures that have been given (by God Himself) the ability to choose their own actions that God cannot know absolutely what the future will bring. He is, of course, God and knows every available fact that might have bearing on a future event including what we are LIKELY to do (He knows us better than we know ourselves), and He is able to interact and influence people by various means as well, so God can indeed predict the future with an accuracy that only the true and living God could possible dream of achieving. But still, predicting and knowing are not the same thing. One preserves free will, the other destroys it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Modal logic distinguishes between necessities, certainties/actualities, and possibilities.
Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity or logical contradiction (even for an omniscient being).
I would like to hear a coherent explanation of the Arminian view of 'simple foreknowledge'. What is the mechanism? I understand Calvinism's determinism and how it would support certain knowledge, but at the expense of libertarian free will.
Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity or logical contradiction (even for an omniscient being).
I would like to hear a coherent explanation of the Arminian view of 'simple foreknowledge'. What is the mechanism? I understand Calvinism's determinism and how it would support certain knowledge, but at the expense of libertarian free will.
Is the eternal existance of God logical? Is infinite space logical? Is the trinity, 3 but 1, logical? What is logical? Is it the same for us as it is for God? I wouldn't put too much stock in it.
I agree that we could do anything other than what he already knows we are going to do, but that doesn't mean we are not able to do other than what we do. He knowledge of our actions don't determine our actions, we do. His FOREknowledge is based upon what we determine, not vise versa. I you knew without any doubt whatsoever what your eldest daughter was going to do tomorrow at noon, would that mean you had determined her to do it? Of course not. That is what seperates foreknowledge from predetermination. If you make the former mean the latter then the what meaning does the latter have? See my point?
God_Is_Truth
New member
do you believe in an illogical God?
so he wouldn't know things we haven't yet determined right? have i determined what i'll eat for breakfast tomorrow? no, so then even by your statement, God would not have foreknowledge of it right? since his foreknowledge is based upon what we determine, it can't exist until we determine it. but if it waits until we determine it, why would it be called foreknowledge?
How can you know as a certainty what a person will do tomorrow? There may be possibilities, probabilities, patterns, etc., but if the person is a free moral agent, they must be able to chose between alternatives, even at the last second. There is nothing inherent in the situation to know as a certainty/actuality before it happens. If it is based on probability, it is still a proximal situation. Try extrapolating this to a distal circumstance trillions of years ago.
There is nothing in eternity past to be an object of knowledge, even for an omniscient being, who will win the Stanley Cup or Superbowl in 2012. Was it predictable or knowable that there would be no Stanley Cup in 2005 trillions of years ago. There were no men, no such thing as hockey, and endless variables that could make a game or season go one way or another. Unless God actively interferes in gambling, sports events, etc. things are only know as possibilities until they become certainties as the event unfolds. God correctly knows reality as it is. He distinguishes possibilities, contingencies, certainties, and actualities. If there is freedom in moral and mundane choices, there cannot be simple or exhaustive foreknowledge without determinism.
Not only is it logical, it is THE ONLY logical conclusion one could come to about the existence of God.
I don't see anything illogical or self contradictory about the idea of infinite space but it is interesting to point out that no one has proven that space is in fact infinite and so the question I think is moot.
Yes it is. Again, not only is it logical, it is a logical necessity!
Nothing about Christianity is fundamentally illogical, the way most Christians think and study the Bible not withstanding. Any so called 'truth' that can be demonstrated to engage a fallacy of logic is not true. It may not be completely wrong but the presents of a logical fallacy does prove that there is something about it that is not correct. All truth is logical; that's part of what it means for something to be a truth.
Yes, I see your point, this is why it is so terribly inaccurate when someone referrs to an Open Theist as an Arminian or implies that Open Theism is a form of Arminianism. In fact, I think it to far more accurate to say that Arminianism is really just a form of Calvinism because the logical conclusion of both is determinism and a detruction of any and all meaning of God having created us in the first place.
Time is short and so I won't respond fully to the rest of this last paragraph. GIT and godrulz pretty well hit the nail on the head with their responses anyway. Anything else from me would be redundant.
Excellent post, by the way. This is fun! :thumb:
Resting in Him,
Clete
Revelation > reason.
Revelation may be beyond natural reason (we would not know God is triune from looking at the Creator's creation necessarily), but it is not unreasonable. We accept revelation from God by faith, until our understanding catches up. Some think that logical contradictions and absurdities are possible just because God is involved. Unresolved issues that do not make sense are not always a 'mystery'. Sometimes our theology is simply wrong, hence the aversion to some aspects of Calvinism here. Clark Pinnock (Open Theist) rightly observes that Scripture leaves God's sovereignty and human freedom in tension without a definitive, systematic resolution. However, Open Theism goes beyond the other views and gives a more cogent explanation of what God's sovereignty entails (providential vs meticulous control/determinism). It is also able to show how free will contingences can be maintained in light of God's omniscience (it understands the nature of time vs eternity and recognizes two motifs in Scripture: some of the future is 'predestined' and settled; much of the future is unsettled/open/contingent).
I differ slightly from Clete's assessment on Open Theism/Arminianism (though he is a great thinker for the most part). Most prominent Open Theists consider themselves more in the Armininian than Calvinistic camp...i.e. both views promote free will theism (Wesleyan, Armininian, etc.). However, Armininianism still ends up with some of the same problematic issues. For my thinking, I would say Open Theism is similar to Arminianism (sub-type) in SOME aspects, but different in many other aspects (especially simple, exhaustive foreknowledge...which is a core issue).
Revelation may be beyond natural reason (we would not know God is triune from looking at the Creator's creation necessarily), but it is not unreasonable. We accept revelation from God by faith, until our understanding catches up. Some think that logical contradictions and absurdities are possible just because God is involved. Unresolved issues that do not make sense are not always a 'mystery'. Sometimes our theology is simply wrong, hence the aversion to some aspects of Calvinism here. Clark Pinnock (Open Theist) rightly observes that Scripture leaves God's sovereignty and human freedom in tension without a definitive, systematic resolution. However, Open Theism goes beyond the other views and gives a more cogent explanation of what God's sovereignty entails (providential vs meticulous control/determinism). It is also able to show how free will contingences can be maintained in light of God's omniscience (it understands the nature of time vs eternity and recognizes two motifs in Scripture: some of the future is 'predestined' and settled; much of the future is unsettled/open/contingent).
I differ slightly from Clete's assessment on Open Theism/Arminianism (though he is a great thinker for the most part). Most prominent Open Theists consider themselves more in the Armininian than Calvinistic camp...i.e. both views promote free will theism (Wesleyan, Armininian, etc.). However, Armininianism still ends up with some of the same problematic issues. For my thinking, I would say Open Theism is similar to Arminianism (sub-type) in SOME aspects, but different in many other aspects (especially simple, exhaustive foreknowledge...which is a core issue).
Have you ever heard of Euthyphro's dilemma?
The specifics of the doctrine of the Trinity may not be a logical necessity but plurality within God is. Euthyphro's dilemma was presented as an argument against monotheism by Aristotle and his logic is perfect and undeniable. The only way Christianity escapes is through the doctrine of the Trinity, without it Christianity would be crushed by this dilemma, along with Islamic monotheism and any other "purely monotheistic" system of belief.
Resting in Him,
Clete
http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/euthyphr.htm
This seems to be a Platonic (polytheism= original context) issue about morality, not monotheism. Could you clarify its application to monotheism/Trinity? It does not seem to address a necessity for a compound unity vs solitary being. This dilemma seems to be about lex rex vs rex lex (law is king or king is law).
The triune God revelation shows that love, relationship, communication, fellowship, etc. are eternal. God was not 'alone' for trillions of years.
Rolf Ernst
New member
The arguments against the Reformed faith are based on a general lack of Bible knowledge. If you study with the works of both Reformed and the Arminian/OV theologians in hand for purposes of comparison, it will soon become apparent that when the Arminian/OV theologians deal with those texts which clearly present God as absolutely sovereign, such as Romans chapter nine, you will see the Arminian/OVers begin to rationalize, departing from the scripture itself to fall back on human reasoning.
On the other hand, when Reformed people are dealing with texts which SEEM to support the Arminian/OV view of Scripture, the Reformed people never resort to rationalizing away the clear words of Scripture. Instead, Reformed people look more deeply into the text and more widely into the context and the whole of scripture.
Therefore, one of the mose enlightening ways of determining which doctrinal view is correct is to observe the way Reformed people deal with those verses which the opposite camp puts forth as proof of their view, and the way the Arminian/OVers deal with those texts which Reformed people put forth as proof of their doctrinal view.
I myself have posted on TOL the proper interpretation of verses that Arminians like to use and through them, I have shown that the Arminian views of those texts are erroneous--that the texts do NOT support the Arminian view, but instead, when the texts are properly considered, support and prove that the Reformed view of Scripture is the Biblical view.
What I said above about Arminians and OVers finding it necessary to fall back on rationalizing and reasoning in defense of their position is clearly demonstrated on this forum as those with false views of Scripture OPENLY maintain that the logic of fallen men with their rationalizations and reasonings are guidelines by which scripture texts much be considered. That amounts to men sitting in judgement on God's Word BUT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS THAT "In the WISDOM OF GOD THE WORLD BY WISDOM KNEW NOT GOD" AND THAT "THE WISDOM OF MEN IS FOOLISHNESS TO GOD."
Perhaps the clearest evidence against the gross distortions of Scripture presented by the Arminan/OV theologians is the way they find it necessary to leave numerous texts of scripture in a contradictory tension with one another; and invariably they give the greater weight to those scriptures which would, if they were interpreted in accord with their views, dishonor God.
Examples of that are often seen when God's attributes of His immutability--the immutability of both His being and His purposes--and His omniscience are under consideration.
On the other hand, when Reformed people are dealing with texts which SEEM to support the Arminian/OV view of Scripture, the Reformed people never resort to rationalizing away the clear words of Scripture. Instead, Reformed people look more deeply into the text and more widely into the context and the whole of scripture.
Therefore, one of the mose enlightening ways of determining which doctrinal view is correct is to observe the way Reformed people deal with those verses which the opposite camp puts forth as proof of their view, and the way the Arminian/OVers deal with those texts which Reformed people put forth as proof of their doctrinal view.
I myself have posted on TOL the proper interpretation of verses that Arminians like to use and through them, I have shown that the Arminian views of those texts are erroneous--that the texts do NOT support the Arminian view, but instead, when the texts are properly considered, support and prove that the Reformed view of Scripture is the Biblical view.
What I said above about Arminians and OVers finding it necessary to fall back on rationalizing and reasoning in defense of their position is clearly demonstrated on this forum as those with false views of Scripture OPENLY maintain that the logic of fallen men with their rationalizations and reasonings are guidelines by which scripture texts much be considered. That amounts to men sitting in judgement on God's Word BUT THE SCRIPTURE SAYS THAT "In the WISDOM OF GOD THE WORLD BY WISDOM KNEW NOT GOD" AND THAT "THE WISDOM OF MEN IS FOOLISHNESS TO GOD."
Perhaps the clearest evidence against the gross distortions of Scripture presented by the Arminan/OV theologians is the way they find it necessary to leave numerous texts of scripture in a contradictory tension with one another; and invariably they give the greater weight to those scriptures which would, if they were interpreted in accord with their views, dishonor God.
Examples of that are often seen when God's attributes of His immutability--the immutability of both His being and His purposes--and His omniscience are under consideration.
Last edited:
From Does God Exist? - Battle Royale VII - Bob Enyart vs. Zakath Post 7b...
Zakath explains what Euthyphro's Dilemma is very nicely in his 7th post of that debate if you're interested. You can see the entire debate, which is well worth reading in spite of its length, here.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
There are some broad generalizations here that do not seem to be fair or are the pot calling the kettle black.
Both camps affirm God's absolute omniscience. The question is what are objects of knowledge and whether everything is a certainty or if there are genuine contingencies/possibilities.
Strong immutability is not even held by classical theologians. It is a Platonic idea, not a biblical one. God is unchanging in His essential nature and character. He is changing in His relations and experiences (or He would not be personal). The nature of time and eternity is also relevant. Open Theism has rightly pointed out verses that should be taken literally (God changing His mind, etc.), but are figuratively dismissed by traditional views.
We should not underestimate our bias or preconceived theology when we come to the text. All camps claim to do sound exegesis, but the tendency is still to proof text.
e.g. Just because God knows or predestines some of the future, does not necessitate that He knows all of it.
Just because God is unchanging in some ways, does not mean He is unchanging in all ways.
Just because God corporately elects Israel and the Church, does not mean that this can be extrapolated to individual predestination and reprobation (Rom. 9-11 context= election of Israel, not individuals to salvation from all eternity).
In relation to resolving Euthyphro's dilemma his argument had everything to do with the Trinity, that was the whole point. As I said and as Bob points out in his argument Aristotle thought he was really sticking it to the monotheists of his day but failed to anticipate the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity. The argument is basically that without the relationships that exist within the Triune God, God could not know whether or not He was really good. Such a lack of knowledge would be fatal to any religious system.
Likewise, polytheistic systems are logically inconsistent for other reasons and so atheists love to use Euthyphro against Christians because it's easy for them to get a Christian to accept the falsity of polytheism and pantheism and they think that Euthyphro destroys Christianity by destroying monotheism. What they end up doing instead though, is logically proving that Christianity is the only logically consistent worldview and thus the only belief system that could possibly be true. They end up cutting off their own nose to spite their face and I enjoy every moment of it!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Why would an omniscient, holy, good, loving solitary being not know righteousness from evil. Would not the Father alone know truth and absolutes, even if there was no Son or Spirit (which there is)? "Could not know" does not seem self-evident for a solitary being. It may be confirmed by all members of the Godhead, but why, inherently, could not a solitary God NOT know that He was good? We have moral capability as an individual. Why is a compound unity essential to knowledge of good and evil? The one God knows His being and character is the ground for absolutes and the Law. His will is not arbitrary, but based on what is inherently right/holy. If we just emphasize the ONE true God, knowledge should still exist (whether we emphasize His personal distinctions or not...the one nature of God is the issue, not the fact He is triune).
I have not heard this line of argument before (could not know if not triune), so I am trying to understand why it is necessary. It seems to me that monotheism, properly understood (lex rex vs rex lex), resolves the 'dilemma' (whether God is triune or not...the fact He is triune may prove the point all the more...2 or 3 witnesses?).:help:
Emo
New member
This is somewhat a repost from a different thread w/ some slight alterations. Forgive me for lacking creativity, it's the weekend. 
Would you want to take a test when someone other than yourself has already predetermined whether you fail or not? Would you run in a race that you know you are guaranteed to finish last? Would you drive your car to work tomorrow knowing that someone was planning on shooting you in the head at a stoplight? What would be the point of prayer as well? For me, prayer strengthens & deepens my relationship with God. Why do Calvinists waste their time praying if they don't even know that they are saved. How can one truly dive into a love relationship with God when they aren't sure that it is genuine? God desires an intimate relationship with His creation. Why not? He didn't seek to destroy mankind again, instead He made the incomparable sacrifice & has given mankind the amazing gift of grace. I love God all the more for His grace that I don't even deserve. Christ can set you free, make you righteous & the Holy Spirit is there to sanctify you. The work is done. The key is to lose yourself. Salvation is for everyone & who shall limit that or take it away from God. No one!
Would you want to take a test when someone other than yourself has already predetermined whether you fail or not? Would you run in a race that you know you are guaranteed to finish last? Would you drive your car to work tomorrow knowing that someone was planning on shooting you in the head at a stoplight? What would be the point of prayer as well? For me, prayer strengthens & deepens my relationship with God. Why do Calvinists waste their time praying if they don't even know that they are saved. How can one truly dive into a love relationship with God when they aren't sure that it is genuine? God desires an intimate relationship with His creation. Why not? He didn't seek to destroy mankind again, instead He made the incomparable sacrifice & has given mankind the amazing gift of grace. I love God all the more for His grace that I don't even deserve. Christ can set you free, make you righteous & the Holy Spirit is there to sanctify you. The work is done. The key is to lose yourself. Salvation is for everyone & who shall limit that or take it away from God. No one!
b-baggins
New member
Because you'll never meet an unregenerate Calvinist. Anyone who subscribes to Calvinism automatically assumes they are one of the elect. In fact, it's requisite. In other words, they came to the Calvinist position precisely because they are elect. It's quite a nice circular argument.
The answer to your question is in the following three paragraphs of Bob's post...
- Humans are social beings, and our morality magnifies itself in our actions toward others. But because we are social beings, even actions committed against ourselves affect others, as for example when we hurt ourselves to manipulate others, like Gandhi did; or even the person seeking to escape his own pain by committing suicide, who hurts those around him. Thus because morality is social, a social God who interacts with multiple persons has an additional context in which to objectively demonstrate His morality. Let me illustrate the implications of this using the Christian conception of the Trinitarian God, Father, Son and Spirit, three persons in one God. If God is a Trinitarian God, then He has an eternal track record of interaction between the persons of the Godhead. And if during that eternal fellowship, if any moral inconsistency appeared, then God would be objectively evil. But an atheist may ask, “What if there was no inconsistency because this God is consistently evil?” A God with other persons to interact with has other frames of reference, that is, other perspectives from which to declare Himself. Thus if the Son willingly submits to the Father, because He implicitly trusts the Father from whom He has never experienced harm, and the Spirit brings glory to the Son, because He has never felt threatened by the Son, and the Father loves the Son and the Spirit, never having His wellbeing jeopardized by either, then “by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.” Thus even though it is the only standard He has ever known, God the Father can determine that His own standard is righteous because He has never violated it, and because the independent persons of the Son and the Spirit testify that the Father has never violated their own self-interests [Luke 16:12].
This process is greatly amplified when God creates other beings, and as He reveals Himself to them in various ways. For, He must behave toward them in their own best interest, or else He violates His own standard of love. And He must punish those who hurt others, or else He violates His own standard of justice. And if God’s intention was not for the welfare but for the harm of created eternal beings, then He would have violated His own declared standard.
Thus while moral inconsistency indicates wickedness, eternal consistency proves either continuous good or continuous evil; and multiple perspectives from independent persons provide information regarding whether God acts on behalf of, or against, their best interests. Of course, an atheist will accuse the Bible’s God, if He exists, of endless evils, but since atheists deny any system of absolute morality, for their logical argument to succeed, they would have to show that the concept of the Christian God is internally inconsistent, violating His own standard of righteousness.
Without a relationship with the other two persons of the Trinity, God could know is that He had been consistent, but He would not know whether He had been consistently good or consistently evil. The whole concept of good and evil assumes the existence of relationships between two or more persons.
Resting in Him,
Clete