Calvinism.....Arminianism??

[Nathon Detroit]

Which one is Biblical and which isn't?

Neither.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism are settled theisms (i.e., those theologies present the future as being settled via God's ordination or through God's perfect foreknowledge). We do not find a settled future when reading the Bible. While God may settle some plans by bringing something to pass, He doesn't exhaustively settle the future.... He leaves it open and therefore we have a real will of our own and are able to have a true relationship with Him.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Actually, given how superficial so many of your posts are, I wonder if the last time you actually read a book from cover to cover, versus using Amazon's "Peek Inside," was in seminary--where you were likely forced to read an entire book.

That is a bit gratuitous don't ya think?

Such venom. :shocked:

 

[penofareadywriter]

That is a bit gratuitous don't ya think?

Such venom. :shocked:

I have to agree :up:.... by the way..have noticed that Calvy's on TOL seem to be kind of mean? Or is it just me?

 

[assuranceagent]

I am fine when people simply disagree with the OV..(they can be wrong if they want to...:second what is discouraging is when people like Piper continually misrepresent the open view over and over again. And to make it worse...acuse OV"s of heresy! It just bums me out...:rain:

I agree. And I could say almost exactly the same thing and only replace "OV" with any other theological framework ie, "Calvinism" or "Arminianism", and the statement would be just as valid.

I know that the Open View is often misrepresented by it's opponents. In fact, more often than not. But I believe the same could be said of Calvinism or Arminianism.

Being 'not quite any of the above' makes it a bit easier for one to be objective, I'd think. :thumb:

How have you been broseph?:cheers:

Better than I deserve. Got a lot on my plate right now so I've been rather scarce of late, but I've been lurking a bit and I throw in little incendiary bits every now and again.

 

[Lon]

I have to agree :up:.... by the way..have noticed that Calvy's on TOL seem to be kind of mean? Or is it just me?

Just you

Incidentally, I don't see much venom in the question. I've often wondered the same with William. It isn't mean, it is just a pondering that I'd often thought to ask. Perhaps speculating instead of asking can be seen as mean but I'd be surprised if not a few OVer's weren't wondering the same thing, it is his style that suggests.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I have to agree :up:.... by the way..have noticed that Calvy's on TOL seem to be kind of mean? Or is it just me?

Some are... some aren't.

I think some of them get frustrated they can't orchestrate and manipulate our will in the same fashion they think God does based on their own theology.

It's a bit of a tragic position for them.....

They want to convince us they are right yet..... if they are right.... they wouldn't have the ability to convince anyone of anything. It's a lose, lose for them.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Just you

Incidentally, I don't see much venom in the question. I've often wondered the same with William. It isn't mean, it is just a pondering that I'd often thought to ask. Perhaps speculating instead of asking can be seen as mean but I'd be surprised if not a few OVer's weren't wondering the same thing, it is his style that suggests.

I don't think anyone was referring to you Lon. The venom was in AMR's post.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I know that the Open View is often misrepresented by it's opponents. In fact, more often than not. But I believe the same could be said of Calvinism or Arminianism.

Maybe so but here is the rub....

If either Calvinism or Arminianism were true, they are both being represented exactly the way God wants them to be represented.

Think about it.

 

[godrulz]

I am fine when people simply disagree with the OV..(they can be wrong if they want to...:second what is discouraging is when people like Piper continually misrepresent the open view over and over again. And to make it worse...acuse OV"s of heresy! It just bums me out...:rain:
How have you been broseph?:cheers:

Bruce Ware has the same problem, but at least he sees our point about endless time vs timelessness (just does not follow it through to its logical conclusion).

Calvinism is a political machine defending its turf by chasing out the competition.

 

[Lon]

Maybe so but here is the rub....

If either Calvinism or Arminianism were true, they are both being represented exactly the way God wants them to be represented.

Think about it.

The rub is a bit superflous as to assessment (double-pred), but I think the rub goes both ways at that point.

As long as I've been here, there are compatible elements to the OV that require a bit of wading to ascertain (I'm discussing one such item now with Muz). I like to see us on the same page and holes occassionally.

Thanks for the pos note btw. I appreciate you too.

Lon

 

[penofareadywriter]

I agree. And I could say almost exactly the same thing and only replace "OV" with any other theological framework ie, "Calvinism" or "Arminianism", and the statement would be just as valid.

I know that the Open View is often misrepresented by it's opponents. In fact, more often than not. But I believe the same could be said of Calvinism or Arminianism.

Oh totally! I guess I'm referring to the "Piper click". I don't know if you heard the debate between Boyd and Piper but it was classic!(At lest what I read). For me, Boyd did a great job of representing classic theology(as I understand CT) where as Piper on the OV....not so much. He never really addressed the OV on its own terms. All he had to present was aK: version of Calvinism.
So are other views mis-reped, you bet! But I think the misrepresentation of the open view is significant and in my humble opinon....curiously so. But I think I know why.......

Being 'not quite any of the above' makes it a bit easier for one to be objective, I'd think. :thumb:

I bet it does!

Better than I deserve. Got a lot on my plate right now so I've been rather scarce of late, but I've been lurking a bit and I throw in little incendiary bits every now and again.

:chuckle:

 

[penofareadywriter]

Maybe so but here is the rub....

If either Calvinism or Arminianism were true, they are both being represented exactly the way God wants them to be represented.

Think about it.

:chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

It's hard for me to get excited about debating this topic anymore. From my perspective it's over. I haven't heard any compelling biblical or logical arguments from the settled view's side and it's been over 12 years since I have been debating this issue. Maybe somebody someday will come along and get me excited to debate it again. Until then, I will just casually involve myself.

I do wish the settled viewers would debate the topic in a more friendly way, maybe that's one of the things that has turned me off from this debate in the last couple years. :idunno:

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

It's hard for me to get excited about debating this topic anymore. From my perspective it's over. I haven't heard any compelling biblical or logical arguments from the settled view's side and it's been over 12 years since I have been debating this issue. Maybe somebody someday will come along and get me excited to debate it again. Until then, I will just casually involve myself.

I do wish the settled viewers would debate the topic in a more friendly way, maybe that's one of the things that has turned me off from this debate in the last couple years. :idunno:

Daniel 11 contains detailed events, decisions, and emotions of various people hundreds of years in advance. As far as I've seen, only Muz has addressed Daniel 11 from the OVT perspective. His basic analysis was, "God will cause all of these things to happen".

Do you agree?

 

[Lon]

It's hard for me to get excited about debating this topic anymore. From my perspective it's over. I haven't heard any compelling biblical or logical arguments from the settled view's side and it's been over 12 years since I have been debating this issue. Maybe somebody someday will come along and get me excited to debate it again. Until then, I will just casually involve myself.

I do wish the settled viewers would debate the topic in a more friendly way, maybe that's one of the things that has turned me off from this debate in the last couple years. :idunno:

That or logically (I'm guilty! I'm guilty!). I pray that I've overcome this initial hurdle. It is difficult (I hope for sympathy and empathy for our new initiates). Of all the things I've appreciated about TOL, making me 'think' and support intelligently are hallmarks of my indebtedness. I still embarrassingly look over our initial one on one, yet am thankful for it because it pressed me toward study and examination as well as cogent positioning. For that, again, my humble thanks.

In Him,

Lon

 

[penofareadywriter]

Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
This is another silly point for a system that claims that God is meticulously sovereign. If everything God wants to happen happens because He is the cause of all things, and everything that happens is His will, how can there be a division in His will?

Think about it. God on one hand says, "murder is wrong" and on other other hand says, "It is my will that Jack the Ripper murder 40 women." It is contradictory. It's insane.
Muz

Explain your position on this dichotomy, please. We know God saw Jack the Ripper at the time of the attrocities. What was God's desire and will at the time according to the OV? Was it His will to allow? What is the difference between Hilston's position?

The rub is a bit superflous as to assessment (double-pred), but I think the rub goes both ways at that point.

As long as I've been here, there are compatible elements to the OV that require a bit of wading to ascertain (I'm discussing one such item now with Muz). I like to see us on the same page and holes occassionally.

Lon

To answer your ? from the other thread.....The power to influence is irrevocable (though it be finite).God engages in a prolonged struggle with creatures when they rebel, not because a greater good comes of it or because he hopes for their salvation(though this is true of people who are not irrevocably hardened in their rebellion), but rather because the alternative of immediately revoking their power to influence would undo the morally responsible freedom that is necessary for love.
Suppose I give my teenage daughter 200$ for her b-day. If I genuinely give her the money I cannot dictate how she spends it. if i truly give it to her, she owns it, which means that she has the power to spend it as she sees fit. if I threaten to take the money back every time she wants to spend it in ways other than how I would spend it, I actually still own the money. I am just choosing to spend it through her.
if God were to retract our freedom every time we were about to chose something against His will, then it cannot be said that He REALLY gave us freedom.
When free agents choose to harm others, to some extent God must tolerate this misfortune.

 

[assuranceagent]

It's hard for me to get excited about debating this topic anymore. From my perspective it's over. I haven't heard any compelling biblical or logical arguments from the settled view's side and it's been over 12 years since I have been debating this issue. Maybe somebody someday will come along and get me excited to debate it again. Until then, I will just casually involve myself.

I do wish the settled viewers would debate the topic in a more friendly way, maybe that's one of the things that has turned me off from this debate in the last couple years. :idunno:

I feel the same way...and for much the same reasons though obviously reversed in perception.

I suppose it is much ado about perspective... :think:

 

[assuranceagent]

Maybe so but here is the rub....

If either Calvinism or Arminianism were true, they are both being represented exactly the way God wants them to be represented.

Think about it.

Only if one is predestined to reject compatiblism

 

[godrulz]

Daniel 11 contains detailed events, decisions, and emotions of various people hundreds of years in advance. As far as I've seen, only Muz has addressed Daniel 11 from the OVT perspective. His basic analysis was, "God will cause all of these things to happen".

Do you agree?

I am not sure Muz really says that God will cause all of these things.

You deserve a solid answer since this is an objection in your mind.

(some assume Revelation prophecies are like looking in a crystal ball, but many are fairly generic and open and could be fulfilled in a number of ways or at any given time).

 

[Lon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by themuzicman
This is another silly point for a system that claims that God is meticulously sovereign. If everything God wants to happen happens because He is the cause of all things, and everything that happens is His will, how can there be a division in His will?

Think about it. God on one hand says, "murder is wrong" and on other other hand says, "It is my will that Jack the Ripper murder 40 women." It is contradictory. It's insane.
Muz

Explain your position on this dichotomy, please. We know God saw Jack the Ripper at the time of the attrocities. What was God's desire and will at the time according to the OV? Was it His will to allow? What is the difference between Hilston's position?



To answer your ? from the other thread.....The power to influence is irrevocable (though it be finite).God engages in a prolonged struggle with creatures when they rebel, not because a greater good comes of it or because he hopes for their salvation(though this is true of people who are not irrevocably hardened in their rebellion), but rather because the alternative of immediately revoking their power to influence would undo the morally responsible freedom that is necessary for love.
Suppose I give my teenage daughter 200$ for her b-day. If I genuinely give her the money I cannot dictate how she spends it. if i truly give it to her, she owns it, which means that she has the power to spend it as she sees fit. if I threaten to take the money back every time she wants to spend it in ways other than how I would spend it, I actually still own the money. I am just choosing to spend it through her.
if God were to retract our freedom every time we were about to chose something against His will, then it cannot be said that He REALLY gave us freedom.
When free agents choose to harm others, to some extent God must tolerate this misfortune.

:thumb: This is close to how I'd answer it. Between us however are variations on our understanding of it. So, I think we answer it similarly but understand aspects of it differently because your analogy stops here. I believe God knows exactly how it winds up being spent (foreknowledge) and a few other alterations to the analogy.