Omniscience means fatalism.

[Rosenritter]

This is a n excellent observation. I have found that reason does not work on a Calvinist. For a long time that bothered me until someone explained to me that reason won't persuade people away from the irrational because it wasn't reason that brought them to where they are in the first place. It's the equivalent to asking someone who arrived on an island by boat to leave the boat and swim back to the mainland. They see no motive for doing so. Swimming, after all, is hard work!

Also, there is an additional barrier for those like AMR who have invested tens of thousands of dollars and years and years of their lives into their doctrinal beliefs. The more time and money and effort someone has put into digging the particular hole they're in, the harder it is for them to even want to get out. The emotional inertia is enormous because its just too difficult to get over the hump that requires you to admit that all that time and money and effort was wasted. When I did family counseling, years ago, we would refer to this as being "entrenched" and it's all but impossible to overcome, except, as you say, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Clete

Mar 10:17-23 KJV
(17) And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
(18) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
(19) Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
(20) And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
(21) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
(22) And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
(23) And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

I've gone to this passage before with regards to Irresistible Grace to show that even though Jesus loved the man (presumably willing that he come to a knowledge of the truth) he turned away regardless. Jesus was God yet didn't get everything he wanted. But it is also perhaps a lesson that even our possessions could also include our pride or education or even the respect of our peers.

 

[Clete]

While I agree with this sentiment, wouldn't every Christian say the same thing about his own beliefs?

Some would and some wouldn't. Calvinism and other Augustinian belief systems in particular, are full of people who jump at the chance to pull out the "antinomy" theological trump card any time sound reason gets in the way of one of their doctrines. Also, many in the so called "charismatic movement", which is complete emotionally based insanity, are militantly anti-intellectual and not only couldn't care less about rational theological arguments but will tell you openly to stop thinking it and just believe it!

There are, however, a great many Christian who would indeed make such a claim and almost none of them are Open Theists and most probably don't agree with each other either.

So, the question isn't who makes the claim, it's who can defend it. This is what makes the inclusion of "sound reason" so powerful and so necessary. Apart from direct divine revelation, sound reason is the only means by which the human mind can falsify any truth claim. So when two theologians both make biblical arguments in favor of contradictory doctrines, it is sound reason and only sound reason that not only tells us that they cannot both be right but also whether either of them is right (i.e. they may both be wrong). Without sound reason, the Bible itself is useless to resolve doctrinal disputes because without sound reason there's no need to make sense, indeed there is no way to make sense.

As for me, I have found that Open View Theism, coupled with Acts 9 Dispensationalism, is the most biblically faithful and rigorously rational doctrinal system - by far. And I mean by really really far. There is no close 2nd anywhere and believe me, I've looked.

With Acts 9 Dispensational Open Theism, you get to read the Bible like it's a regular book and almost always take it to mean what it plainly seems to be saying and it's not complicated and confusing and it doesn't glaze your eyes over inside of one page and God comes off seeming like a real actual person who really does care for you in a way that you can actually relate too and understand. It's sort of the best of both worlds. You get the relationship/emotional side of Christianity while maintaining an intellectually rigorous doctrinal system that actually requires that you NOT turn off your mind on the way into the church service. There is literally no other doctrinal system that I have ever seen that comes even remotely close.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Mar 10:17-23 KJV
(17) And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
(18) And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
(19) Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
(20) And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
(21) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
(22) And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
(23) And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!

I've gone to this passage before with regards to Irresistible Grace to show that even though Jesus loved the man (presumably willing that he come to a knowledge of the truth) he turned away regardless. Jesus was God yet didn't get everything he wanted.

And what was the result?

I mean, when you presented this brilliant argument (and it is brilliant - I'm not being sarcastic) to a Calvinist, how did they typically respond?

But it is also perhaps a lesson that even our possessions could also include our pride or education or even the respect of our peers.

Right! Exactly! I'm glad you said this. When I say that "it costs too much" for those who are entrenched to change their minds, it can be about money but it's usually some form or another of emotional cost, which, if you ask me, it way way harder to overcome than mere financial considerations.

Clete

 

[Rosenritter]

And what was the result?

I mean, when you presented this brilliant argument (and it is brilliant - I'm not being sarcastic) to a Calvinist, how did they typically respond?

Right! Exactly! I'm glad you said this. When I say that "it costs too much" for those who are entrenched to change their minds, it can be about money but it's usually some form or another of emotional cost, which, if you ask me, it way way harder to overcome than mere financial considerations.

Clete

I cannot remember how many times I've presented any one argument to which people. However, if I were Calvinist I might suggest that even though he was used as an example of how hard it was for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, that either:

1) He did enter the Kingdom of heaven, being predestined among the elect regardless if he obeyed now, or later, or never until the judgment

I would consider that argument weak because it goes against the intended lesson Jesus drew from the experience and would not explain why it told us "Jesus loved him" but it would seem more legitimate than these other anticipated styles of responses:

2) He was not among the elect and "Jesus loved him" was merely an anthropomorphism
3) I could borrow a page from AMR and say it was only Jesus's human nature that loved him, but the Divine nature slated him for hell
4) I could use the Mennosota method of knee-jerk responses about the Sovereignty of God and post from my four favorite proof texts
5) Ignoring the passage is a time-tried favorite and very effective in the long run

At the risk of offending straw men, I have seen all of those styles of responses before, and within some variance they seem to be able to be used regardless of context or the actual question.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Even though Calvinists try to back up their 'doctrine' (belief-system) with Scripture, there's still a problem with their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the verses they use. After all, they have to first and foremost, add their Calvinistic slant to the Scripture verse being used. You might look at it this way: Scripture has to be run through an Calvinist filter so that the verse aligns itself with their particular belief-system. I noticed, after reading AMR's post from three years ago, that he took Matthew 23:37 " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. and he seemed to (in my opinion) change who Jesus was addressing.

If we just take the verse at face value, Jesus is speaking to Jerusalem. However, AMR seems to be saying that Jesus is speaking of the Scribes, Pharisees, etc, and not to Jerusalem itself. Of course, AMR has a right to his opinion. I believe Christ was lamenting the fact that these people 'chose' not to follow after Him, although He desired that they would. The verse plainly shows the 'free-will' of the people to choose. However, Calvinists do not believe in the 'free-will' of humanity, at least when it comes to salvation and eternal life. One of their core beliefs is that certain people (the Elect) were chosen before the foundation of the world, to be saved and the rest was basically, chosen for eternal damnation. Calvinists would say that this choice of God's was according to His Sovereign Will.

 

[Derf]

4) I could use the Mennosota method of knee-jerk responses about the Sovereignty of God and post from my four favorite proof texts

:chuckle:

 

[Derf]

Even though Calvinists try to back up their 'doctrine' (belief-system) with Scripture, there's still a problem with their misinterpretation and misrepresentation of the verses they use. After all, they have to first and foremost, add their Calvinistic slant to the Scripture verse being used. You might look at it this way: Scripture has to be run through an Calvinist filter so that the verse aligns itself with their particular belief-system. I noticed, after reading AMR's post from three years ago, that he took Matthew 23:37 " Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling. and seemed to (in my opinion) change who Jesus was addressing.

If we just take the verse at face value, Jesus is speaking to Jerusalem. However, AMR seems to be saying that Jesus is speaking of the Scribes, Pharisees, etc, and not to Jerusalem itself. Of course, AMR has a right to his opinion. I believe Christ was lamenting the fact that these people 'chose' not to follow after Him, although He desired that they would.
...

I tend to agree with the idea that Jesus was addressing the religious leaders, if not exclusively, then at least mostly. Unfortunately, it then shows that not only can a person exercise free will of some sort to resist irresistible grace aimed at him, but also that someone else (the religious leaders) can stand in the way of a person (children of Jerusalem) receiving their irresistible grace.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the grace is irresistible, but in the sense that it is logically the only game in town, not to mention beautifully merciful, not unlike a perfectly cooked steak after a hard day, when there's nothing else to eat. Some people might still resist the steak.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

In such cases it's seldom by using words like "their false doctrine" as that tends to have the opposite effect of solidifying the belief in the face of a perceived antagonist. One-on-one conversation with reason and gentleness and seeking to understand from both sides has the best chances.

However, it is our responsibility to call out false doctrines, and refer to them, as such. Jesus was forthright and so was John the Baptist.

 

[Derf]

Not necessarily. I have heard some doctrine justified that it cannot be rationally comprehended and we should not expect it to make sense.

But to them, that's the best sense they can make of it, while retaining their presuppositions. I don't think anybody who gives it thought would say they are intentionally believing something that is less logical when a more logical option is available.

 

[Rosenritter]

I tend to agree with the idea that Jesus was addressing the religious leaders, if not exclusively, then at least mostly. Unfortunately, it then shows that not only can a person exercise free will of some sort to resist irresistible grace aimed at him, but also that someone else (the religious leaders) can stand in the way of a person (children of Jerusalem) receiving their irresistible grace.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the grace is irresistible, but in the sense that it is logically the only game in town, not to mention beautifully merciful, not unlike a perfectly cooked steak after a hard day, when there's nothing else to eat. Some people might still resist the steak.

Act 7:51-52 KJV
(51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
(52) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Does the Holy Ghost have the heart and will of God?

 

[Derf]

This is a n excellent observation. I have found that reason does not work on a Calvinist. For a long time that bothered me until someone explained to me that reason won't persuade people away from the irrational because it wasn't reason that brought them to where they are in the first place. It's the equivalent to asking someone who arrived on an island by boat to leave the boat and swim back to the mainland. They see no motive for doing so. Swimming, after all, is hard work!

Also, there is an additional barrier for those like AMR who have invested tens of thousands of dollars and years and years of their lives into their doctrinal beliefs. The more time and money and effort someone has put into digging the particular hole they're in, the harder it is for them to even want to get out. The emotional inertia is enormous because its just too difficult to get over the hump that requires you to admit that all that time and money and effort was wasted. When I did family counseling, years ago, we would refer to this as being "entrenched" and it's all but impossible to overcome, except, as you say, by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Clete

Imagine also how hard it would be to teach a particular doctrine, then conclude that you have been teaching a falsehood for years.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I tend to agree with the idea that Jesus was addressing the religious leaders, if not exclusively, then at least mostly. Unfortunately, it then shows that not only can a person exercise free will of some sort to resist irresistible grace aimed at him, but also that someone else (the religious leaders) can stand in the way of a person (children of Jerusalem) receiving their irresistible grace.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the grace is irresistible, but in the sense that it is logically the only game in town, not to mention beautifully merciful, not unlike a perfectly cooked steak after a hard day, when there's nothing else to eat. Some people might still resist the steak.

Of course, the above is your opinion and I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion.

 

[Derf]

Act 7:51-52 KJV
(51) Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
(52) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which shewed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers:

Does the Holy Ghost have the heart and will of God?

Yes, but I don't understand the connection you're making.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I believe the GRACE is the only game in town, and thus IRRESISTIBLE on that basis. Not that "IRRESISTIBLE GRACE" is the only game in town.

 

[Derf]

Of course, the above is your opinion and I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion.

If it's everybody in Jerusalem (or a majority), then how are the children of Jerusalem the ones that are prevented by "Jerusalem" from being gathered?

Matthew 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

 

[Rosenritter]

Imagine also how hard it would be to teach a particular doctrine, then conclude that you have been teaching a falsehood for years.

Jas 3:1 KJV
(1) My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

Jas 3:13-18 KJV
(13) Who is a wise man and endued with knowledge among you? let him shew out of a good conversation his works with meekness of wisdom.
(14) But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
(15) This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.
(16) For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work.
(17) But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
(18) And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

 

[genuineoriginal]

While I agree with this sentiment, wouldn't every Christian say the same thing about his own beliefs?

One Christian may believe in a literal 6 day creation.
Another Christian may believe the creation account is allegorical and that evolution is true.

Which of the two is attempting to "provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship"?
Probably both.

 

[Derf]

meekness of wisdom.

That's a pretty good summary.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If it's everybody in Jerusalem (or a majority), then how are the children of Jerusalem the ones that are prevented by "Jerusalem" from being gathered?

Matthew 23:37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

I don't really understand what you're getting at? The children Jesus is speaking of are the inhabitants of Jerusalem itself. I'm thinking that Christ is speaking of Jerusalem as being an entity, place, area, a people, etc. (Examples, of course) The Lord is lamenting the fact that Jeruselum chose NOT to follow after God's Will and chose their own way.

 

[Derf]

I don't really understand what you're getting at? The children Jesus is speaking of are the inhabitants of Jerusalem itself. I'm thinking that Christ is speaking of Jerusalem as being an entity, place, area, a people, etc. (Examples, of course) The Lord is lamenting the fact that Jeruselum chose NOT to follow after God's Will and chose their own way.

If the children of Jerusalem are the inhabitants, and they are prevented from being gathered by "Jerusalem", then Jerusalem is not the same as Jerusalem's children. Who, then, is "Jerusalem"?

If the children are preventing themselves, there seems no reason for Jesus to distinguish between Jerusalem and her children.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If the children of Jerusalem are the inhabitants, and they are prevented from being gathered by "Jerusalem", then Jerusalem is not the same as Jerusalem's children. Who, then, is "Jerusalem"?

If the children are preventing themselves, there seems no reason for Jesus to distinguish between Jerusalem and her children.

Sometimes an entire region is named by the name of the capital city of that region.

Here in Ezekiel, the land of the ten tribes of Israel are called Samaria and Aholah, while the land of the 2 tribes of Judah are called Jerusalem and Aholibah.

Ezekiel 23:4 4 And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.​

Based on this, Jesus may be calling all of Judaea by the name Jerusalem, and the children of Jerusalem would be the twelve tribes of Israel/Judah.