Omniscience means fatalism.

[Clete]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

You ought to know better than this.

Jesus was preventing the woman's stoning, not because she was innocent nor because everyone there was just as guilty. He did what He did because it was a trap designed by the Jews to get Jesus in trouble with the Roman authorities who required their permission to execute someone. Had He permitted the stoning, as she deserved, the Jews would have leaped at the chance to go tell the Romans and cause all sorts of trouble that would have worked counter to the purpose for which Jesus was present on the Earth to accomplish.

Can you honestly say that you have never redefined an English word to suit your own doctrinal understanding?

Absolutely!

If you're debating someone about what color the sky is and your opponent is allowed to redefine the words "blue, "green" and "red" to mean anything he needs them to mean, how could you win the debate?

Redefining words that get in your way is irrational. One of the most attractive things about Open Theism is it's insistence upon being a rationally coherent. Dr. John Sanders, a modern leader in the Open View movement, rightly put it this way...

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders​

If you could show a single counter example, I'd hear it gladly and will make whatever adjustment is necessary to correct the error.

Is it possible that you may have done so in the past (or even currently) without realizing what you are doing?

I'm not talking about mistakes. Anyone can make a mistake and we don't know what we don't know. What I'm talking about is the intentional redefinition of otherwise well understood English terms.

As an example, the word 'sovereign' does NOT mean what the Calvinists pretend it means. It simply means "highest authority". How much authority we're talking about depends on the context in which the term is used. I am the sovereign of my household. A king is the sovereign of his nation. I did not predestine nor do I control every event that happens in my house. Likewise a king is not in control of every event that occurs with the borders of his country. I can delegate authority to someone under my authority. I can give my daughter's the authority to keep the pets fed and clean, for example. A king might delegate authority to a particular person to over see the building of bridges. This doesn't change the fact that I am the sovereign authority in my home and that a king is the sovereign of his nation because sovereignty doesn't mean "meticulous control of everything that happens" is means "highest authority".

I know of no such activity in Open Theism circles and I would result reject any argument made by any Open Theist that was predicated on such grounds.

Perhaps even such a common word like "destroy" or "death" or "life" to instead mean "preserve" or "torment" or "happiness?" That may be another discussion, but I think that we may be better served by softening our tendency to judge and quickening our spirit to graciousness.

Look, I understand what you're getting at but your graciousness is wasted on the dishonest and on the blaspheming fools that represent Calvinism on this website.

It's not like I'm just looking for a reason to be insulting and to put people on ignore. Quite the contrary, in fact. I'm as patient as Moses with people who are honest and who are making actual arguments and asking well thought out questions and positing genuine objections. (Here's a recent example.) If these fools would actually debate instead of lie and be stupid, there's a whole list of us Open Theists who would be happy as clams and this would be the greatest website on the entire internet!

Clete

 

[JudgeRightly]

You ought to know better than this.

Jesus was preventing the woman's stoning, not because she was innocent nor because everyone there was just as guilty. He did what He did because it was a trap designed by the Jews to get Jesus in trouble with the Roman authorities who required their permission to execute someone. Had He permitted the stoning, as she deserved, the Jews would have leaped at the chance to go tell the Romans and cause all sorts of trouble that would have worked counter to the purpose for which Jesus was present on the Earth to accomplish.


Absolutely!

If you're debating someone about what color the sky is and your opponent is allowed to redefine the words "blue, "green" and "red" to mean anything he needs them to mean, how could you win the debate?

Redefining words that get in your way is irrational. One of the most attractive things about Open Theism is it's insistence upon being a rationally coherent. Dr. John Sanders, a modern leader in the Open View movement, rightly put it this way...

"The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders​

If you could show a single counter example, I'd hear it gladly and will make whatever adjustment is necessary to correct the error.


I'm not talking about mistakes. Anyone can make a mistake and we don't know what we don't know. What I'm talking about is the intentional redefinition of otherwise well understood English terms.

As an example, the word 'sovereign' does NOT mean what the Calvinists pretend it means. It simply means "highest authority". How much authority we're talking about depends on the context in which the term is used. I am the sovereign of my household. A king is the sovereign of his nation. I did not predestine nor do I control every event that happens in my house. Likewise a king is not in control of every event that occurs with the borders of his country. I can delegate authority to someone under my authority. I can give my daughter's the authority to keep the pets fed and clean, for example. A king might delegate authority to a particular person to over see the building of bridges. This doesn't change the fact that I am the sovereign authority in my home and that a king is the sovereign of his nation because sovereignty doesn't mean "meticulous control of everything that happens" is means "highest authority".

I know of no such activity in Open Theism circles and I would result reject any argument made by any Open Theist that was predicated on such grounds.


Look, I understand what you're getting at but your graciousness is wasted on the dishonest and on the blaspheming fools that represent Calvinism on this website.

It's not like I'm just looking for a reason to be insulting and to put people on ignore. Quite the contrary, in fact. I'm as patient as Moses with people who are honest and who are making actual arguments and asking well thought out questions and positing genuine objections. (Here's a recent example.) If these fools would actually debate instead of lie and be stupid, there's a whole list of us Open Theists who would be happy as clams and this would be the greatest website on the entire internet!

Clete

I'm unable to view that link...

 

[genuineoriginal]

I can see in my dog's eyes, he is going to run into the street. A word stops him. Wouldn't it be correct to say BOTH I knew what he was going to do AND that I stopped him from doing it?

Some dogs listen to their masters and stop when the master commands.
If your dog listens to you and stops, then you knew what the dog was going to do and you stopped the dog from doing it because the dog obeyed your command.

Other dogs do not listen to their masters and do not stop.
If your dog does not listen to you and does not stop, then you knew what the dog was going to do and you tried to stop the dog from doing it, but the dog refused to obey your command and did not stop.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Everyone is a Calvinist on their knees

Not everyone will pray the Calvinist prayer:

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Pelagians. They only think they have free-will because you deceived them into thinking that. I was born with a predetermined fate; I was born as one of the elect and nothing I do will change that. You only give grace to people like me that you chose to be elect thousands of years before we were born. All the rest of humanity will be tormented in hell forever because you chose that fate for them before the world was created and nothing they do will change that."​

 

[genuineoriginal]

Pelagius said there is no such thing as original sin. Adam’s sin affected Adam and only Adam. There is no transmission or transfer of guilt or fallenness or corruption to the progeny of Adam and Eve. Everyone is born in the same state of innocence in which Adam was created. And, he said, for a person to live a life of obedience to God, a life of moral perfection, is possible without any help from Jesus or without any help from the grace of God.​

That is what the Bible teaches, so Pelagius (or whoever said that) is correct.

Pelagius said that grace — and here’s the key distinction — facilitates righteousness. What does “facilitate” mean?​

That is not what the Bible teaches.
It is a perversion of grace to claim grace facilitates righteousness.

Grace is God showing His favor to someone that merits it through pleasing God, and God is pleased by our faith.

To the extent that Palageus taught what I believe, Palageus was right. The extent he didn't he was wrong.

That is the only right way to look at it.
:thumb:

 

[genuineoriginal]

Pelagius taught that humans choose God and that their choice brings God's grace. He is the forerunner of Arminius who was the forerunner of Finney. The path of heresy is long in the Pelagian camp.

Original Sin is a heretical belief that Augustine brought into Christianity from Manichaeism.

All soterioligical doctrines that are based on the false doctrine of Original Sin are also false doctrines.

 

[genuineoriginal]

TOL is not for cult members.

You may leave now.

 

[genuineoriginal]

It seems to me that free-will proponents call mental decision making...faith. That would put the power of faith in the human mind rather than in the will of God.
Hebrews 11:1 says:
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

That is not a good translation.

Hebrews 11:1 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.​

Hebrews 11 shows that faith is the actions carried out, not a mere mental decision.
The actions of faith are the evidence of the beliefs that are not seen.

 

[Rosenritter]

Original Sin is a heretical belief that Augustine brought into Christianity from Manichaeism.

All soterioligical doctrines that are based on the false doctrine of Original Sin are also false doctrines.

I was able to agree with one of the definitions AMR gave for "Original Sin" earlier. It may be that there may be some unstated assumptions that are also associated with the doctrine, but at least I was able to agree with those words then as they were stated.

So here's why that term might be confusing. Just pulling the definition from Wikipedia, it says:

Original sin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Not to be confused with Eternal sin.
For other uses, see Original Sin (disambiguation).


Original sin, also called "ancestral sin",[1] is a Christian belief of the state of sin in which humanity exists since the fall of man, stemming from Adam and Eve's rebellion in Eden, namely the sin of disobedience in consuming the forbidden fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.[2] This condition has been characterized in many ways, ranging from something as insignificant as a slight deficiency, or a tendency toward sin yet without collective guilt, referred to as a "sin nature", to something as drastic as total depravity or automatic guilt of all humans through collective guilt.[3]

I understand that man is sinful by nature, meaning that he is capable of sin, and that this was proved through Adam. An infant is born with this same nature, even if it has not had opportunity to prove this as an individual through actions. This does not necessarily mean that the infant is guilty of Adam's specific instance(s) sin.

Regardless, man in his natural state is imperfect and can sin, and has not been created (or gifted) with eternal life. It would not matter if someone could manage to never sin (as some might argue with the infant of days or someone who was born into a coma) because the potential for sin is there. The only path to eternal life and salvation is through a gift, which must be specifically bestowed by God, who shall accomplish this in us when we are changed (as Paul speaks in his letter to the Corinthians.)

I can agree with a definition of original sin in that manner. I cannot say I would agree with any or every definition that someone might use that falls within the scope of that Wikipedia article.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Philosophical musings, such as theological fatalism, are the wiles of the Devil.
Scripture clearly teaches that God is omniscient and man is still responsible and punishable for his sin.
There is no escaping the truth of God through philosophical theories.

The scriptures clearly teach that God is All Mighty.
Omniscience comes from Greek Philosophy about the characteristics of a perfect god, not from the Bible.

the greek origin of omniscience The concept of omniscience in rooted in the idea of God’s “perfection”. In platonism, the perfect cannot change. Thus, if god changed (such as learning new information) then god would not be perfect. Omniscience, then, is an extension of platonistic musings on perfection. Christianity, early in its infancy, adopted these notions of perfection and with it an idea of Omniscience in which God’s knowledge does not change. This is why there is such great objection to Open Theists who want to redefine omniscience to mean knowing “all things current”. Redefining omniscience to allow God’s knowledge to change divorces Omniscience from its roots in platonistic perfection.

​

There is no escaping the truth of God through philosophical theories.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Scripture teaches God's choosing, election and predestination.

Free-will

Isaiah 66:4 4 I also will choose their delusions, and will bring their fears upon them; because when I called, none did answer; when I spake, they did not hear: but they did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I delighted not.​

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

That is what the Bible teaches, so Pelagius (or whoever said that) is correct.


That is not what the Bible teaches.
It is a perversion of grace to claim grace facilitates righteousness.

Grace is God showing His favor to someone that merits it through pleasing God, and God is pleased by our faith.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Original Sin is a heretical belief that Augustine brought into Christianity from Manichaeism.

All soterioligical doctrines that are based on the false doctrine of Original Sin are also false doctrines.

MS has proved himself/herself to be the EPITOME of a TROLL and ought to be exiled.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Not everyone will pray the Calvinist prayer:

"Lord, I thank thee I am not like those poor presumptuous Pelagians. They only think they have free-will because you deceived them into thinking that. I was born with a predetermined fate; I was born as one of the elect and nothing I do will change that. You only give grace to people like me that you chose to be elect thousands of years before we were born. All the rest of humanity will be tormented in hell forever because you chose that fate for them before the world was created and nothing they do will change that."​

Calvinists are difficult to deal with. They're usually quite arrogant, angry, and pretentious. I know from experience.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I don't think ANYONE could come up with Calvinism independently. I don't even think that Calvin himself came up with it independently. He certainly did NOT come up with it by reading the Bible, that much is completely certain. As you rightly point out, the doctrines are at least as old as Aristotle. They found their way into Christianity via Augustine who, it could be argued, is the one most responsible for the doctrines as they currently exist. Calvin did little more than formalize the doctrine of others like Luther who had no quarrel with the Catholic Theology Proper and their understanding of things like predestination and the immutability of God. What Luther kicked off, Calvin formalized into a cohesive doctrinal system but the doctrines where not, for the most part, original to him. The system simply carries his name because he's the one that formalized the system.

As for giving him the benefit of the doubt, I have no doubt with which to benefit him. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind at all that he just flat out lied. The alternative is that his mind is simply broken and he doesn't know what he is saying. There is, however, no evidence in his other posts to suggest that he is either insane or stupid to this degree.

Clete

I believe MS is merely a TROLL out to cause disruption and arguments. He/she calls a lot of names, etc. Hopefully, he'll soon receive, at least, a stern reprimand.

 

[Rosenritter]

Calvinists are difficult to deal with. They're usually quite arrogant, angry, and pretentious. I know from experience.

Aside from personal experience, you do realize that such a broad statement tends to have an antagonizing effect and is unlikely to achieve harmonious results as you might state that you desire?

 

[genuineoriginal]

In Greek, events as a whole are treated as neuter singular things with neuter articles, (e.g., to pisteuein, "believing"), neuter relative pronouns (e.g., Eph 5:5), or neuter demonstrative pronouns, as in v8b (also, for example, 6:1; 1 Cor 6:6,8; Phil 1:22,28; Col 3:20; 1 Thes 5:18; 1 Tim 2:1-3). Hence, the antecedent of touto is the whole event: "being saved by grace through faith".

One implication of this proper understanding of touto is that all the components of the event are also referenced as originating not from human capacity or exertion but as God's gift. This means that even the believer's act of believing comes from God, as is said more explicitly by Paul elsewhere: "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him…" (Phil 1:29).

This is part of the evidence of Protestantism's historic position that salvation is sola gratia and sola fide. Humans contribute nothing of their own to this salvation, since even believing (which the elect are indeed enabled to do) is a divine gift (cf. Rom 3:24-25). In the context of Eph 2:8, the key to this is what Paul had been driving home so forcefully up until now: Before God's gracious intervention, believers were hopelessly dead, with their wills imprisoned by nature in acts that led only to transgression and sin (2:1-5a,12).

So the gift in the second clause refers, via touto, to "For by grace you have been saved through faith." So God's gift is salvation by grace through faith. Faith is included in the gift. Faith isn't something by which Christians receive the gift, but a part of God's gracious saving endowment.

AMR

Ephesians 2:OX8 8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift G1435 of God:​

Of the 19 times the word is found in the Bible, it is used for sacrifices and other gifts offered to God in all but the one verse in Revelation.

g1435 δῶρον dōron a gift, present gifts offered in expression of honour of sacrifices and other gifts offered to God of money cast into the treasury for the purposes of the temple and for the support of the poor the offering of a gift or of gifts

​

If the verse meant a gift given to man, Paul would have used g1434 δώρημα dōrēma as he did in Romans 5:16.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If you think that fool came up with Calvinism independently, than you are the one that is deluded.

He flat out lied - period. That makes him an irredeemable waste of time to discuss theology with and therefore a permanent resident on my ignore list.

There's not a single Calvinist on this website that knows how to debate honestly. AMR, believe it or not, comes closer than anyone here, by far, and even he intentional redefines the meaning of common English words to the point that his doctrine is rationally unfalsifiable. He also routinely and intentionally misrepresents what others have said in order to score points mostly with those who already agree with him. In effect, he's a liar like the rest of them. He believes what he wants to believe and brings those beliefs to the Bible and twists whatever he has to twist in order to keep it all from crumbling to powder under the weight of the the simple idea that God is just. And he's the best Calvin's got on TOL and has been for years!

Pathetic and boring!

Clete

Excellent post. AMR is intelligent, articulate, and a devoted Calvinist. However, he is completely WRONG about the 'Character of God,' and he teaches a false doctrine. Regreatable, to say the least.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You are caviling against shadows. Who herein is advocating anything to the contrary? :idunno:

AMR

You were 'suggesting' people and things to pray about. As I explained to you, prayer is a 'personal' communication with God. Perhaps, you didn't articulate properly and I didn't get your jest? Why not try again?

 

[genuineoriginal]

I was able to agree with one of the definitions AMR gave for "Original Sin" earlier. It may be that there may be some unstated assumptions that are also associated with the doctrine, but at least I was able to agree with those words then as they were stated.

So here's why that term might be confusing. Just pulling the definition from Wikipedia, it says:


I understand that man is sinful by nature, meaning that he is capable of sin, and that this was proved through Adam. An infant is born with this same nature, even if it has not had opportunity to prove this as an individual through actions. This does not necessarily mean that the infant is guilty of Adam's specific instance(s) sin.

Regardless, man in his natural state is imperfect and can sin, and has not been created (or gifted) with eternal life. It would not matter if someone could manage to never sin (as some might argue with the infant of days or someone who was born into a coma) because the potential for sin is there. The only path to eternal life and salvation is through a gift, which must be specifically bestowed by God, who shall accomplish this in us when we are changed (as Paul speaks in his letter to the Corinthians.)

I can agree with a definition of original sin in that manner. I cannot say I would agree with any or every definition that someone might use that falls within the scope of that Wikipedia article.

Is it nature or nurture?
Is mankind naturally sinful from conception or does sinfulness come as a person grows and acquires the knowledge of good and evil?