Featured Not Closed Theology

Matthew 10:29-30. "Are not two sparrows sold for a copper coin? And not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father's will. But the very hairs on your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value that many sparrows."

The Lord Jesus did not mention molecule and atoms because He would not have been understood. But if there were one rogue atom somewhere in the Universe that God did not know about and rule, then the world would be out of control and our faith in God found to be in vain.

'For the want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For the want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For the want of a horse the rider was lost.
For the want of a rider the battle was lost.
For the want of a battle the kingdom was lost;
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.'
[Benjamin Franklin, I think]

However, this in no way destroys the concept of free will. Unsaved sinners use their free will to oppose Christ and to indulge their sinful natures (John 3:19 etc.); the saved seek God's will for their lives and try to please Him (Psalm 40:8 etc.). Yet still God manages all things according to His good and perfect will (Genesis 50:20; Proverbs 16:4).
The fact that we cannot understand how He does this does not make it any the less true. '"For My thoughts are not your thoughts; nor are your ways My ways," says the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts higher than your thoughts."'

 

My advice (not that you need any advice from me - it's just a manner of speaking to make the point) for the remainder of the thread would be for you to force the Calvinists who will argue with you to actually address the argument you've made and do not allow them to lure you into a proof-texting battle, which you cannot win because you'd be tacitly accepting their premise by engaging them in that way. It's better to simply explain how their proof texts don't say what they are suggesting (as you did in the post immediately preceding this one) and that the Calvinist's proof-texting barrage is just a seemingly endless parade of passages where they have read their doctrine into the text.

As much as possible, stick to the fact that the doctrine of predestination, as normally taught in most Christian circles, is contradictory to the concept of a just God. God is either just OR He predestined everything that happens. It cannot be both. The Calvinist will redefine the word "just" to be synonymous with "arbitrary" or do whatever they have to do, up to and including disregarding the need for their doctrine to be rational, before conceding the point but don't let them off the hook. It is their Achilles heel.

 

Please define "rule".

 

I submit to you that this is somewhat of a meaningless thing to say. Actually, "meaningless" is too strong. It's just inaccurate and more importantly, concedes important ground to the "Closed View" that you're debating against. The idea that the term "sovereign" has to do with controlling what happens is a Calvinist (i.e. Closed View) redefinition of the term that has been done to conform the notion to their doctrine. Accepting their redefinition is a tacit acceptance of the premises that made the redefinition necessary.

God is the Sovereign of the universe. Meaning that there is no higher authority than God in all of existence. It is not required that God either cause or allow every event that happens in order for the term "sovereign" to apply because the word doesn't have anything to do with controlling or causing the things that happen. The word is about authority. The highest authority is, by definition, sovereign. A king is typically the highest authority in a nation and he is, therefore, sovereign over that nation. This doesn't mean that the king either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass in his country. In fact, the king is completely unaware of most of the events that happen in his country and yet the term "sovereign" totally applies. It is only because of the Calvinist's distortion of the term that causes anyone to think otherwise.

 

By holding to this understanding of sovereign you have, IMO, ceded the ground to divine meticulous control.
If God causes man to choose A or He only allows them to choose A is just saying the same thing with different words.

Mans free will requires that he be able to choose from available options. The will is free in so far as it is not necessitated. If the will can only move in one direction, and no other directions are possible, then the will would not in that case be properly called “free”. Freedom of the will has reference to the will’s ability to freely choose. A free will is free from necessity.

 

It does because it uses the very redefinition that those who pour false doctrine into God's word redefined it as!

The word "sovereign" simply does not mean or even imply to "cause or allow whatsoever comes to pass". It just does not mean that at all! It means "highest authority". That's all it means. If you think it means "causes or allows all the comes to pass" you have Calvinists (Augustinians actually) to thank for that definition and you absolutely do TACITLY concede the premises upon which that definition (doctrine) is based.

 

This idea has a name. It's called the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. And it doesn't matter whether its because God only allows one particular action (i.e. predestined it) or if He simply infallibly knew it in advance. The result is the same.....

T = You answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am

1. Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
2. If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
3. It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
4. Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
5. If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
6. So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
7. If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
8. Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
9. If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
10. Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]

Source
The author of that syllogism is a Prof. Linda Zagzebski, the Kingfisher College Chair of the Philosophy of Religion and Ethics at Oklahoma University. She calls this the "Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism" because she happens to be a Catholic and presupposes the truth of God's exhaustive infallible foreknowledge and thus intended it as a proof that people do not have free will. (I've often wondered whether it has ever occurred to her that the same argument applies to God's will and that if He knows everything in advance then He is no more free than we are.) At any rate, the point here is that this particular argument was not something that was cooked up to argue in favor of Open Theism. In fact, the syllogism does not argue whether God foreknows everything nor whether we have free will. It simply proves that infallible foreknowledge and free will are mutually exclusive ideas. If you accept one, you are rationally forced to reject the other.

 

So do you agree with what I posted or disagree?

 

Your use of "to cause or allow whatsoever comes to pass." to define sovereign is, to put it simply, wrong. But it does define determinism. Sovereignty of God in scripture means highest authority. God is the sovereign ruler of the universe but He does not cause or allow whatsoever happens as that would make Him the author of all that happens without exception, whether good or bad. Is that what you are saying Van?

As to God knowing all the choices that man would freely make. Well of course He would know them, He is omniscient after all.

 

No, it flat out does not mean that!

That is false!

A king is completely ignorant of the vast majority of the events that take place in his country but he completely is the highest authority that exists for that nation. He is, by definition, that nation's sovereign.

TACITLY

I am not suggesting that you're doing so on purpose or knowingly. My point is that ideas have consequences and you don't get to have your cake and eat it too. If you believe that the word sovereign means to cause or allow all that comes to pass, you have one singular man to thank for it. His name is Augustine of Hippo and his redefinition of the term is based on certain premises that must be used in order to arrive at such a conclusion.

To accept the definition and to reject the premises upon which the definition is based is to commit a classic example of a stolen concept fallacy, which happens when you employ one concept while denying one or more of the concepts upon which it is based. "All private property is theft." is the most common example given. It "steals" the concept of theft by undermining the concept of private property, without which the concept of theft has no meaning.

You misunderstood the point. I was not disagreeing with you. On the contrary, I was simply expanding on the same valid point you had just made.

That's exactly correct! God knows what He wants to know of that which is rationally knowable and any knowable point of fact that He doesn't already know, He is able to discover. (see Genesis 18:21)

This completely biblical fact is the reason we can believe that we do indeed have the ability to choose!

 

I am not trying to redefine "sovereignty", how do you come to that conclusion? Your version of God means that He has to have His finger on the scale all the time or He could not know what is happening. Your stating to sound like a determinist.

 

False definition of the word "sovereign".

If flat out DOES NOT mean "nothing happens unless God either causes t, or allows it to occur.".

If does not mean that and I can repeat that FACT exactly as many times as I see you ignore it and repeat the same Augustinian foolishness that makes God responsible for sin.

 

I find this interesting for some reason.

You are correct CJ as far as the definition goes. But is that really the point? You have just pointed out that a king is totally ignorant of a lot of what goes on in the kingdom but it is believed to be different with God.

This part I agree with and it's why I said in the related thread that indeed, a Calvinist can argue with an open theist but I have never heard a non-Calvinist do so. What would they say?

In the example above, if God knows that a person will answer the telephone tomorrow (which most Christians believe He does), and if God is able to allow that to happen or prevent it from happening (which again most Christians say He can), then that event must happen or God is not sovereign. I would say though that you are still choosing to answer the phone tomorrow according to your own free will. God's knowledge and sovereignty over that action does not infringe upon you acting freely to answer the phone.

Your definition of sovereignty is forcing us to apply the definition to the limitations of men without taking into account the attributes of God. You are correct in a definition of the word but what the word means in practice depends upon the attributes of the king in question.

 

put on the whole armour of God, for your being able to stand against the wiles of the devil, because we have not the wrestling with blood and flesh, but with the principalities, with the authorities, with the world-rulers of the darkness of this age, with the spiritual things of the evil in the heavenly places;

the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness is on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters, and God saith, 'Let light be;' and light is. And God seeth the light that good, and God separateth between the light and the darkness, and God calleth to the light 'Day,' and to the darkness He hath called 'Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.

Did The God go on to inject the flesh and blood man into a spiritual wrestling match that was already taking place, for purpose?
Was a big part of that purpose for the Son of God to be manifested as flesh and blood man, to destroy the works of the devil?
Before the man was created would sin and death be required for that purpose?

Was time, instrumental to this plan of The God?

Just asking questions I believe relative to the OP. I have a lot more questions than answers. BTW

Que Sera, Sera