ChristisKing
New member
Agape4Robin said:
All I know about Plato is that I hate it when my 5 yr old mixes the different colors all together... :dunce:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
All I know about Plato is that I hate it when my 5 yr old mixes the different colors all together... :dunce:
Agape4Robin
Member
:emarie: thank you..... :cloud9:Poly said:
Agape4Robin
Member
:darwinsm:ChristisKing said:
Agape4Robin said:
I also have just dabbled. The relevance is that Augustine was influenced by Greek philosophy. Calvin was influenced by Augustine. Modern interpretations (Reformed groups) have been influenced by Calvin. It is a challenge to interpret Scripture, for all of us, without bias and influence from tradition that may or may not be biblical. Critical thinking is a lost skill in our computer generation. Few people are truly literate or good thinkers. Logical fallacies are another discipline that is helpful in sorting out strong vs weak arguments. e.g. begging the question/circular reasoning (assuming what we are trying to prove) is something most of us have been guilty of.
ChristisKing said:
Calvinism is not 2000 years old (1600s). It is not what the early church believed (TULIP). I can understand it without agreeing with it. I know their arguments and proof texts, but simply find them deductive, incoherent, and contrary to other relevant passages. I do not disagree with everything, nor agree with everything about other views.
ChristisKing
New member
godrulz said:
Calvinism is Christianity and Christianity is Calvinism. But you're right and I was wrong, Calvinism is not 2000 years old, its 6000 years old. And even that is not quite accurate, Calvinism was really born in eternity when God predestined His becoming a man in Jesus Christ "before the foundation of the world" and dying for our sins.
1PE 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
1PE 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
Of course this meant man was predestined, and that he would sin was predestined, and that the world was predestined, and the air, sky, sun and moon were predestined.
Then God revealed the His predestined Christ and His plan to defeat satan and his seed to Adam and Eve.
GEN 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
He continued to reveal His predestined plan and ways to Abraham:
GAL 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
and to Jacob and his parents:
ROM 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;
ROM 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
and to Moses:
ROM 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
ROM 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
and to the all the Prophets as they prophesied Christ and all the minute details of His life hundreds and hundreds of times hundreds and thousands of years before He was born,
and to David:
PSA 139:16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Your book were all written The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them.
and to David's son:
PRO 16:1 The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, is from the LORD.
PRO 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
PRO 19:21 There are many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand.
and it was taught by Jesus Christ:
JOH 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
JOH 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
JOH 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
and the Apostles:
ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
and the early church fathers such as Jerome and Augustine:
We must thoroughly examine the Apostle's purpose as to why, in order to emphasize grace, [God] did not choose that the one of whom it was said Jacob I loved, should glory except in the Lord [Mal. 1:3, 1 Co. 1:31]. [Jacob and Esau] were from the same father and the same mother, by one act of intercourse - - and before they had done anything good or evil, God loved the one and hated the other. This was so that Jacob would realize that he was from the lump of original iniquity when he saw that his brother, with whom he had a common origin, in justice deserved to be condemned, and that he could be distinguished only through grace. For, [Paul] says, even before they were born or had done anything good or bad -- in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not by works but by His call -- [Rebecca] was told, 'The elder shall serve the younger.'
The same apostle also clearly asserts in another passage that the election brought about by grace comes from no antecedent merits proceeding from works: 'So too at this time a remnant has been saved through the election of grace. But if by grace, it is no longer because of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace' [Rm. 11:5-6]. Going on, he appropriates the prophet's testimony concerning this grace: As it written, 'Jacob have I loved but Esau I hated,' and then What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means!
Why [did he say] By no means? Was it because He foresaw the future works of both [Esau and Jacob?] Again by no means! For He says to Moses, 'I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy, and have pity on whom I will have pity. So it depends not on the one who wills or runs, but on God, who shows mercy. --From a letter by Augustine to the priest Sextus concerning the Pelagians.
and by Thomas Aquinas, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Pascal, John Locke, The Reformers, The French Huguenots, John Knox, Calvin, Luther The Puritans, King William and Mary, Mathew Henry, John Foxe, John Bunyan, Issac Newton, John Milton, Oliver Cromwell, John Winthrop, All the Mayflower settlers, William Bradford, William Defoe -Wrote Robinson Crusoe, Founders of Harvard University, Founders of Princeton University, Founders of Yale University, John Newton - Wrote "Amazing Grace," George Whitefield and Jonathon Edwards -Leaders of America's great awakening, John Witherspoon--Influencial in assisting the drafting of the U.S. Constitution (of which 18 signers were Calvinists) and Declaration of Independence, David Livingstone -Medical Missionary of the famed "Stanley and Livingstone," Andrew Fuller -Baptist missionay, A.T. Robertson -Baptist theologian, William Carey -Baptist--Est'd first mission to India John Dagg -Baptist theologian, AW Pink -Baptist theologian, President Calvin Coolidge, Spurgeon, Christmas Evans -Baptist, Isaac Backus -Baptist, Broadus -former president of the Southern Baptist Theological Sem., Carroll -founder and first president of the Southwestern Baptist Sem Boyce -founder and first president of Southern Baptist Seminary, Gill, Al Mohler, RC Sproul, JI Packer, John McArthur, Charles Swindoll -president of Dallas Theological Seminary.
Preconceived theology and proof texting at its worst.
Which version of Calvinism is Christianity? 4 point? 5 point? (Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement). There are other variations. I suppose your version is the crux of Christianity. TULIP is not defensible from Scripture. :box: :bang:
Which version of Calvinism is Christianity? 4 point? 5 point? (Calvin did not believe in a limited atonement). There are other variations. I suppose your version is the crux of Christianity. TULIP is not defensible from Scripture. :box: :bang:
Agape4Robin
Member
Correct me if I am wrong here, but doesn't Open Theism state that God has granted to people free will and that in order for this free will to remain free, God cannot know ahead of time what the choices of people will be? If God knew a future choice of a person, then that person would not be truly free to choose anything different when the time comes to make that choice. Therefore, if God knows the future free will choices of people, then it means that free will doesn't really exist.
Furthermore, don't they(open theists) hold to a view of free will known as libertarian free will? This is the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes. In other words, the person is able to equal choose between any set of options. By contrast, compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature and that there are constraints and influences upon his ability to choose. In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition. In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature.
Libertarian free will-
Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to our nature and desires.
Compatibilist free will-
Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires
Romans 6:12-20
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
1Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
In the compatibilism a person who is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20) and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) would not be able to choose God of his own free will because his free will doesn't have the capacity to contradict his nature and his nature is against God, dead, and incapable of choosing God. Libertarianism would maintain that regardless of the nature of a person, his free will allows him to choose God in spite of being a slave to sin and not being able to understand spiritual things. I believe that the singularly most important aspect of Open Theism is the libertarian view of free will and that the Bible, human sinfulness, human freedom, God's nature, and time itself are all viewed through its filter. In fact, I further believe that the Bible is reinterpreted in light of this truth.
The difference between definitions has a profound affect on Open Theism because Open Theism must hold to Libertarian view of free will, not compatibilism. Why? Because Open Theists hold to the absolute sovereign free will of the individual, regardless of that person's sinful nature. But, compatibilism teaches that the will is only as free as its nature permits it to be free. If the latter position is true, then how could the God of Open Theism save anyone without intervening in their wills? But since Open Theism maintains that God not only is ignorant of the free will choices of people, He will not interfere with the free will of anyone.
Nevertheless, the Bible teaches us that God indeed does intervene in people's free choices. Please consider Prov. 21:1 which says, "The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes." If libertarian free will is true and if God does not interfere with a persons' free will at all, then how can Prov. 21:1 be true? Furthermore, consider how God even hardens people's hearts in order to accomplish His will: "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30). Also, "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20). As difficult as some of these verses might be, the fact is that God definitely influences the hearts of individuals. If that is so, then what happens to the Open Theist's position that God will not interfere, in anyway, the free will choices of people?
The Bible says the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:12-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), that he is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Do these facts influence the human will? Both Libertarianism and compatibilism say yes, but libertarianism says that the fallen nature of man does not constrain the free will sufficiently to limit choice. Compatibilism, on the other hand, states that we cannot violate our own natures and that our will is part of our nature, and that our will is directly related to and affected by our nature which, the Bible says, is in pretty bad shape. Therefore, in compatibilism, if someone is a slave of sin, is dead, does not seek for God, is full of evil, and does not understand spiritual things, it makes sense to say that his choices are limited to the scope allowed by the description set forth in the Bible. But the libertarian would say that the will is somehow independent of the nature since it is able to choose contrary to its nature. This, of course, is illogical. Free will is the ability for a person to make choices that determine some or all of his actions. I propose that free will involves three aspects: awareness, desire, and choice. Awareness leads to desire, which leads to choice. Please consider the following:
Awareness, Desire, and Choice
Before we can make a choice about anything, we must first desire to choose it. But before we can desire to choose something we must be aware of it. So, we cannot choose what we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot be aware of something beyond our ability or nature to be aware. For example, there are things in the universe that we are not aware of either in dimension, or scope, or place, or time, that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend given our limited human nature and resources. ( Mars, the Universe and the Hubble telescope, come to mind) Therefore, these unknown realities, cannot be things we are aware of (and comprehend) since we cannot know of them. This means that we are not free to make choices about them because we are not aware of them. Our lack of awareness is logically restricted by our nature.
Likewise if our nature affects our ability to choose, then what the Bible says about our nature will effect our ability to choose. As I said above, the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). We must ask the question how a sinful will is able to choose contrary to what the Bible clearly states concerning its nature.
The Libertarians would, I hope, agree that we are limited by our natures to be able to make choices only between options of which we are aware. From what I have read of Open theists, they easily concede this reality. But, given the scriptures about the unbelievers nature above, they still maintain that the human free will is not constrained by our sinfulness and is still able to make equal choices between equal options -- say, for example, the ability to choose or reject God in spite of the Bible's declaration of the constraints of our sinful nature.
But what seems to be happening is that some Open Theists want it both ways. They want to say that we are affected by our nature, and even though we are sinners by nature, our ability to choose is not constrained by that sinful nature. But, how can this be given the clear direction of scripture about our sinful condition which sates the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14)? At this point, the open theists simply states that human free will is still somehow able to make such choices. To this I ask, "How can this be so, given the scriptures that speak to the contrary?"
In my humble opinion, the open theist position of libertarian free will violates the revelation of scripture which clearly restricts our unregenerate human natures as not being free from sin. It further contradicts scripture that tells us that God intervenes in the hearts of people, i.e. Prov. 21:1 and Deut. 2:30.
The open theist erringly exalts the free will of people to such a high level, that in order for God to be God, He must be lessened (doesn't know the future, can make mistakes, etc.) so that our precious free will cannot be violated. Any theology that reduces the majesty and glory of God by exalting man's freedom is a theology of error.
Furthermore, don't they(open theists) hold to a view of free will known as libertarian free will? This is the position that a person is equally able to make choices between options independent of pressures or constraints from external or internal causes. In other words, the person is able to equal choose between any set of options. By contrast, compatibilist free will holds that a person can choose only that which is consistent with his nature and that there are constraints and influences upon his ability to choose. In libertarian free will, a sinner is equally able to choose God or reject God regardless of his sinful condition. In compatibilist free will, a sinner can only choose to do that which is consistent with his sinful nature.
Libertarian free will-
Free will is affected by human nature but retains ability to choose contrary to our nature and desires.
Compatibilist free will-
Free will is affected by human nature but cannot choose contrary to our nature and desires
Romans 6:12-20
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
19 I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.
1Corinthians 2:14
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
In the compatibilism a person who is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20) and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14) would not be able to choose God of his own free will because his free will doesn't have the capacity to contradict his nature and his nature is against God, dead, and incapable of choosing God. Libertarianism would maintain that regardless of the nature of a person, his free will allows him to choose God in spite of being a slave to sin and not being able to understand spiritual things. I believe that the singularly most important aspect of Open Theism is the libertarian view of free will and that the Bible, human sinfulness, human freedom, God's nature, and time itself are all viewed through its filter. In fact, I further believe that the Bible is reinterpreted in light of this truth.
The difference between definitions has a profound affect on Open Theism because Open Theism must hold to Libertarian view of free will, not compatibilism. Why? Because Open Theists hold to the absolute sovereign free will of the individual, regardless of that person's sinful nature. But, compatibilism teaches that the will is only as free as its nature permits it to be free. If the latter position is true, then how could the God of Open Theism save anyone without intervening in their wills? But since Open Theism maintains that God not only is ignorant of the free will choices of people, He will not interfere with the free will of anyone.
Nevertheless, the Bible teaches us that God indeed does intervene in people's free choices. Please consider Prov. 21:1 which says, "The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes." If libertarian free will is true and if God does not interfere with a persons' free will at all, then how can Prov. 21:1 be true? Furthermore, consider how God even hardens people's hearts in order to accomplish His will: "But Sihon king of Heshbon was not willing for us to pass through his land; for the Lord your God hardened his spirit and made his heart obstinate, in order to deliver him into your hand, as he is today," (Deut. 2:30). Also, "For it was of the Lord to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that he might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the Lord had commanded Moses," (Joshua 11:20). As difficult as some of these verses might be, the fact is that God definitely influences the hearts of individuals. If that is so, then what happens to the Open Theist's position that God will not interfere, in anyway, the free will choices of people?
The Bible says the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:12-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), that he is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). Do these facts influence the human will? Both Libertarianism and compatibilism say yes, but libertarianism says that the fallen nature of man does not constrain the free will sufficiently to limit choice. Compatibilism, on the other hand, states that we cannot violate our own natures and that our will is part of our nature, and that our will is directly related to and affected by our nature which, the Bible says, is in pretty bad shape. Therefore, in compatibilism, if someone is a slave of sin, is dead, does not seek for God, is full of evil, and does not understand spiritual things, it makes sense to say that his choices are limited to the scope allowed by the description set forth in the Bible. But the libertarian would say that the will is somehow independent of the nature since it is able to choose contrary to its nature. This, of course, is illogical. Free will is the ability for a person to make choices that determine some or all of his actions. I propose that free will involves three aspects: awareness, desire, and choice. Awareness leads to desire, which leads to choice. Please consider the following:
Awareness, Desire, and Choice
Before we can make a choice about anything, we must first desire to choose it. But before we can desire to choose something we must be aware of it. So, we cannot choose what we are not aware of. Furthermore, we cannot be aware of something beyond our ability or nature to be aware. For example, there are things in the universe that we are not aware of either in dimension, or scope, or place, or time, that are simply beyond our ability to comprehend given our limited human nature and resources. ( Mars, the Universe and the Hubble telescope, come to mind) Therefore, these unknown realities, cannot be things we are aware of (and comprehend) since we cannot know of them. This means that we are not free to make choices about them because we are not aware of them. Our lack of awareness is logically restricted by our nature.
Likewise if our nature affects our ability to choose, then what the Bible says about our nature will effect our ability to choose. As I said above, the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately sick (Jer. 17:9), is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14). We must ask the question how a sinful will is able to choose contrary to what the Bible clearly states concerning its nature.
The Libertarians would, I hope, agree that we are limited by our natures to be able to make choices only between options of which we are aware. From what I have read of Open theists, they easily concede this reality. But, given the scriptures about the unbelievers nature above, they still maintain that the human free will is not constrained by our sinfulness and is still able to make equal choices between equal options -- say, for example, the ability to choose or reject God in spite of the Bible's declaration of the constraints of our sinful nature.
But what seems to be happening is that some Open Theists want it both ways. They want to say that we are affected by our nature, and even though we are sinners by nature, our ability to choose is not constrained by that sinful nature. But, how can this be given the clear direction of scripture about our sinful condition which sates the unbeliever is a slave to sin (Rom. 6:14-20), loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19), does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12), and cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14)? At this point, the open theists simply states that human free will is still somehow able to make such choices. To this I ask, "How can this be so, given the scriptures that speak to the contrary?"
In my humble opinion, the open theist position of libertarian free will violates the revelation of scripture which clearly restricts our unregenerate human natures as not being free from sin. It further contradicts scripture that tells us that God intervenes in the hearts of people, i.e. Prov. 21:1 and Deut. 2:30.
The open theist erringly exalts the free will of people to such a high level, that in order for God to be God, He must be lessened (doesn't know the future, can make mistakes, etc.) so that our precious free will cannot be violated. Any theology that reduces the majesty and glory of God by exalting man's freedom is a theology of error.
Open Theism usually does not get into the nature of depravity. Perhaps you are confusing Pelagianism with Open Theism. I suspect many open theists agree with your views on depravity. You may also be confusing Calvinism vs Arminianism. Wesleyan Arminianism would also have another slant on the subject.
Total depravity does not mean total inability. The image of God is defaced, not erased.
I do not believe in the Augustinian theory on 'original sin.' We discussed this on another thread. Many open theists would hold to this doctrine. Again, Finney and other semi-Pelagians would disagree with 'original sin'. They are not Open Theists.
Open Theism's hallmark relates to omniscience. Free will is relevant, but no different than Calvinism vs Arminianism.
Total depravity does not mean total inability. The image of God is defaced, not erased.
I do not believe in the Augustinian theory on 'original sin.' We discussed this on another thread. Many open theists would hold to this doctrine. Again, Finney and other semi-Pelagians would disagree with 'original sin'. They are not Open Theists.
Open Theism's hallmark relates to omniscience. Free will is relevant, but no different than Calvinism vs Arminianism.
Agape4Robin
Member
Omniscience? Great! Perhaps we are getting somewhere........Please, as an Open Theist, define the word.godrulz said:
Agape4Robin said:
Omnipotence means God can do all that is doable. He does not do everything He possibly could all the time. It is not a sheer exercise of brute force. It also does not mean that He can do illogical or self-contradictory things like create a rock too heavy to lift.
*Omniscience means that God knows all that is knowable.
We can both agree on this definition. It is an assumption to say that it means God knows everything, including the non-existent future. You believe this includes future free will contingencies. I maintain that the future is partially open/unsettled and thus unknowable as a certainty. It is correctly known as a probability/possibility (except for what God predestines and settles..some things only). The knowing of a nothing is a bald contradiction. Exhaustive foreknowledge of future free will contingencies is an absurdity. You do not see this yet, but we both agree that God is absolutely omniscient. We disagree as to what are the possible objects of His knowledge. God knows everything about the future which is logically possible for Him to know.
"As omnipotence is limited by the possible, so omniscience is limited by the knowable...we do not limit omnipotence by denying its power to do impossible or self-contradictory things. Neither do we limit omniscience by denying its power to foreknow unknowable things (future free will contingencies)."
Hasker's definition of omniscience:
"It is impossible that God should at any time believe what is false, or fail to believe any true proposition such that his knowing that proposition at that time is logically possible."
The distinction between what is possible and what is actual is valid for God as well as us. The past is actual, the present is becoming, and the future is possible.
Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, he knows them correctly as possible and not actual."
i.e. God knows all that is knowable. The future free will choices of man are only knowable as possibilities/probabilities until they become certainties/actualities at the time of choice.
What is there inherent in a football or hockey game that would make every move and outcome knowable trillions of years ago? The only way for God to know for sure what will happen during the game is to cause and predestine the movements and outcome. It is self-evident that a sports game involves self-locomotion and thinking (free will). It could happen even if there was no God. God does not meddle in the Superbowl. Even an omniscient being does not know who will win the 2010 Superbowl from the start of creation. In 2010, He would know all the variables and would likely predict the winning team and yet not have to know how every player would respond or what every play would be called (this can change at the last moment as the opponent changes their strategy on the fly).
"It is impossible that God should at any time believe what is false, or fail to believe any true proposition such that his knowing that proposition at that time is logically possible."
The distinction between what is possible and what is actual is valid for God as well as us. The past is actual, the present is becoming, and the future is possible.
Pinnock: "Aspects of the future, being unsettled, are not yet wholly known even to God. It does not mean that God is ignorant of something He ought to know, but that many things in the future are only possible and not yet actual. Therefore, he knows them correctly as possible and not actual."
i.e. God knows all that is knowable. The future free will choices of man are only knowable as possibilities/probabilities until they become certainties/actualities at the time of choice.
What is there inherent in a football or hockey game that would make every move and outcome knowable trillions of years ago? The only way for God to know for sure what will happen during the game is to cause and predestine the movements and outcome. It is self-evident that a sports game involves self-locomotion and thinking (free will). It could happen even if there was no God. God does not meddle in the Superbowl. Even an omniscient being does not know who will win the 2010 Superbowl from the start of creation. In 2010, He would know all the variables and would likely predict the winning team and yet not have to know how every player would respond or what every play would be called (this can change at the last moment as the opponent changes their strategy on the fly).
lee_merrill
New member
And Jonah could guess better than God, too! He thought the Ninevites would repent, and God, apparently, did not. So then we should not always take God's counsel? There might be a better choice...godrulz said:
Blessings,
Lee
ChristisKing
New member
godrulz said:
We can go thru all 5 points one by one as they are all orthodox Christianity. But I thought you would be interested in seeing the main underlying biblical theme of Calvinism, predestination, as fully taught in Scripture and totally consistent throughout the entire bible as well as consistently believed throughout history.
It's amazing isn't it?
Shall we go through the rest of TULIP? Oh and by the way, Calvin not only believed in the biblical doctrine of limited atonement, he taught it.
lee_merrill said:
Johah feared that the Ninevites would repent. He did not want them to. He wanted God to judge them. He was being a cry baby.
God knew they could repent or He would not have extended mercy. He hoped that they would repent. It was not a foregone conclusion that they would repent. The conditional prophecy could have had two fulfillments: repent ---> mercy or rebel----> judged. God knew it was possible and probable that they would repent. This is why He sent His messenger (otherwise He would have just zapped them). It only became a certainty/actuality when they did repent. There was still an element of 'if....then'...
ChristisKing said:
This book has an appendix (E) of Calvin quotes showing he believed in general redemption:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0962485047/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7448653-9080743#reader-link
(click next page for contents, pages, index)
Other threads have dealt with TULIP.
ChristisKing
New member
godrulz said:
"To this pretended difficulty of Pighius, therefore, I would briefly reply that Christ was so ordained the Saviour of the whole world, as that He might save those that were given unto Him by the Father out of the whole world, that He might be the eternal life of them of whom He is the Head; that He might receive into a participation of all the ‘blessings in Him’ all those whom God adopted to Himself by His own unmerited good pleasure to be His heirs . . . Hence we read everywhere that Christ diffuses life into none but the members of his own body. And he that will not confess that it is a special gift and a special mercy to be engrafted into the body of Christ, has never read with spiritual attention Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians. Hereupon follows also a third important fact, that the virtue and benefits of Christ are extended unto, and belong to, none but the children of God".--John Calvin, A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God (trans. H. Cole), in Calvin’s Calvinism (1927) p. 94.
http://www.the-highway.com/articleJuly02.html
None of the threads have dealt with TULIP adequately, so lets do it here, ok?
ChristisKing
New member
godrulz said:
Ok, then quit bringing up TULIP and let's get back to the subject.
We were discussing how for over 2000 years orthodox Christianity and Christians believed in predestination and you were wondering who would be surprised when they went to heaven as to their beliefs. I pointed out that the odds are very much against you because you are the one deviating from orthodox Christianity for so long.
And I proved it. All you could add was how TULIP was wrong. Well it happens that it is not wrong either and it seems you really don't want to discuss TULIP after all. So again, I am proposing that is it you that is very much outside of mainstream orthodox Christianity since it's founding in eternity as revealed in Scripture. Therefore it is you who can expect to be surprised.
Open Theism correctly recognizes two motifs in Scripture: some of the future is predestined and some of the future is open/unsettled. You proof text the former and extrapolate this to exclude the latter. The only way to retain your preconceived ideas is to make the latter verses figurative. Open Theism takes them at face value without contradiction.
- Status