Featured Corporate Election

Hmm. I am of the persuasion it to be neither open theism or Pelagianism.

 

So what? Who are you?

I was speaking for myself. If it's coming from me, it's Open Theism. Not only that, but the only people that I've ever heard say anything similar to this have all been Open Theists.

Not that people who accept corporate election but who are not open theists don't exist. Maybe they do.

Do you know of anyone who isn't an Open Theist who teaches corporate election? If so, could you provide a reference to any of them? I'd be interested.

 

I'd like to test that but I suspect you wouldn't participate.

And those are just about the only two issues that anyone could find that they'd disagree with Calvin about!

One religious ritual that takes about 15 seconds to perform and the particulars on how to run a church.

BIG WOOP!

Neither of those things are doctrines that are distinctive to Calvinism.

 

Well, two of the issues. I was also speaking for myself. Open theism is not orthodox.

 

But it is both rationally sound and entirely biblical.

What are you anyway, a Catholic?

 

What are you saying to be rationally sound?

I am a Baptist.
Open theism is an umbilical and not necessary interpretation. God being both infinite and three distinct Persons. One of whom is both finite and infinite. Mark 13:32 and Acts of the Apostles 1:7, ". . . It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. . . ." So the Son of God need not know.

 

On the contrary! If I'm wrong, being proven wrong is the only thing I want, and I mean that emphatically.

In this case, however, I've not said you were or you weren't and so there's nothing to be wrong about, except that your willingness to participate comes as something of a surprise to me. The flippant, unsubstantial nature of your responses is typical of Calvinists and so made me suspect that you were one. Such an attitude is certainly not exclusive to Calvinists, however, so...

Okay, terrific. That's just about as much of a test as I need already, except that it is entirely about what you reject and I've learned through experience that until you find out what someone affirmatively believes, either attaching or removing a label is unwarranted. This is especially true of Calvinists who like to play games with the definitions of common words.

You'll find that I associate Calvinism far more with their theology proper than I do with the TULIP doctrines. If God is immutable (in the Classical sense of that term) then Calvinism is entirely correct - all of it. Very nearly the entire system is logically derived from that single premise. I understand that this attitude of mine leads to some confusion but nothing that isn't easily identified and fixed. More often than not, its been a useful assumption to make.

Yes. I commonly tell people that Arminianism is far too Calvinistic for me. (Precisely because of their theology proper, by the way.) In fact, what I most often refer to as Calvinism is actually post reformation Arminianism, which, as it turns out covers several flavors of Christianity, including both Calvinism and Arminianism to one degree or another.

Assume the Classical meaning of all these terms...

1. Do you believe that God is immutable?
2. Do you believe that God is impassible?
3. Do you believe in the doctrine of Divine Simplicity?
4. Do you believe in the doctrine of Divine Sovereignty?
5. Do you believe that God is omniscient?
6. Do you believe that God is omnipresent?
7. Do you believe that God exists outside of time?
8. Do you believe that God has choices?

All Calvinists and most Catholics would answer the first seven questions, "yes" without qualification. The last one usually throws some sort of wrench into their gears because they typically won't answer it.

It entirely does matter! I don't understand this propensity toward muddying the water that people have when it comes to Calvinism. There are several sects of Christianity that might share common opinions about any one or all of those issues. As such, none of these are Calvinist distinctive. Calvinist distinctives are those doctrines that allow one to distinguish Calvinism from non-Calvinism. That line isn't always are starkly black and white as we might like for it to be but the role of the military, for example, is certainly not an issue that sets Calvinism apart from its rival systems and the definition of the term "Calvinism" isn't so plastic that you and believe whatever you want and still call yourself a Calvinist or reject some obscure, practically random, doctrine that Calvin happened to believe, just so you can claim not to be a Calvinist. If such were the case, then both of the terms "Calvinist" and "distinctives" have no meaning.

 

ALL truth is rationally sound. Any truth claim that is found to be irrational is false, by definition. This includes the claims made by God, Scripture and anyone who might call themselves Christian or Baptist or whatever.

Yes, I know that! The point was that an appeal to "orthodoxy" is something that resides more comfortably in the mouth of a Catholic than any protestant, including a Baptist. In fact, if an appeal to orthodoxy was valid, we'd all be Catholics.

Prove it!

You won't even try.

That, or the doctrine of divine foreknowledge overstates the truth.

 

You have made truth subjective to your own rationalism. This places you as judge, jury, and god of determining truth.

Since you are an open theist, such an opinion of yourself is to be expected. I have yet to meet an open theist who doesn't view themselves as sovereign over their world.

 

Would you judge this statement of yours as true or false?

Nonsense. Quite literally nonsense.

The only way that could even approach being true is if I had something to do with declaring that existence doesn't contradict itself, which is obviously nonsensical to the point of stupidity.

Did you make this judgment on your own?

You knew this was false when you said it. It's nothing at all but a unsubstantial ad hominem and I suspect the very best that you've got to offer.

 

Definitely! It is, however, only one side of the coin.

I don't see how anyone can be an Arminian at all. It's the most convoluted and self-contradictory attempt to ride the theological fence between Augustinian doctrine and free will that can be made up by the mind of man.

I understand why you say this but it isn't factually the case. The hinge is the immutability of God and by that I mean Plato's version of immutability. It is that doctrine that Augustine clung to and it is that doctrine from which everything distinctively Calvinist is derived, including, but not limited too, Omniscience, Omnipresence, Predestination, Limited Atonement, etc.

This, by itself, would disqualify you as a Calvinist. I haven't read the rest of your responses at this point. I'll be interesting to see how consistent you are.

Biblically, it is God's character that is immutable. God changes His mind, He repents (i.e. wishes the He hadn't done something), is able to be talked out of doing things, He is angry at some points and pleased at others and He does things like become a human being, die and rise from the dead with a brand new glorified physical body that He hadn't ever had before but still has to this day and forever more. His righteous character, however, does not change in anyway whatsoever.

Nice! It is immutability applied to God's state of mind. A Calvinist (and most Catholics) would argue that any change in God's state of mind would necessarily imply imperfection in His state of mind. This was Aristotle's argument and it has been repeated by every prominent Calvinist I've ever read.

VERY nice!

This also is a doctrine that is nothing more than the doctrine of immutability applied to God's being/form.

Well, this is why I said to assume the Classical meaning.

The simple answer, given a Classical meaning of the term, is, "No, God is not sovereign". God does not control nor decree nor is He even specifically aware of every event that happens. If Calvinistic Sovereignty where true, there would be no rational escape from God being the author of sin.

God is, however, the Sovereign of the universe. The word sovereign simply means, "highest authority" and its context matters. If you are talking about a nation, then the king of that nation is that nation's sovereign. There is no authority higher than God in all of existence and thus He is sovereign, by definition.

Calvinistic soveriegnty and decree are themselves both grounded, to use your phrasing, in immutability as is omniscience, predestination.

Biblically, there is no grounds at all for the classical understanding of omniscience. God knows what He wants to know of that which is knowable. He is not required to be a first person witness to every event that occurs nor is His being so required for Him to accurately predict future events. Not to mention that there are several prophecies in the bible that did not come to pass. Also, we see in scripture that God has the ability to learn.

I'll take this as a tacit rejection of the Classical meaning of the term.

Biblically, God can be in all places that exist at once but is only actually in places that He wants to be. He can neither exist in nor go to anyplace that does not exist and He is not required to be anywhere He doesn't wish to be.

"This doesn't make sense to me." That's an interesting phrase. Taisto is going to start accusing you of thinking of yourself as the sovereign on your own world!

It's very good that it doesn't make sense to you because it doesn't make sense - period. It is however what virtually EVERY Calvinist and Arminian and Catholic believes. Very nearly the ENTIRE Christian world believe this stupidity.

It is contradictory on its face. Time is just a concept that we use to communicate information related to the duration and sequence of events relative to other events. It does not exist ontologically. It is an idea. Existence implies duration thus the idea of timeless existence commits a stolen concept fallacy and is thus self-contradictory and self-defeating.

Biblically, there is no argument that can be made for the idea of timeless existence. There are literally dozens of passages that very clearly show that God experiences both sequence and duration, which is all time is.

I'm so loving the one word answer!

Calvin's head would explode!

There is no other biblically consistent alternative. Penal substitution is what Calvary was about or God is unjust (or He doesn't exist at all).

There are no other alternatives that do not destroy the meaning of the word "just" when applied to God.

I'm sorry but saying it doesn't make it so. Just because Calvin believed something doesn't make the belief false or even Calvinism. Calvin was a theist, too! By your logic, if I believe God exists, I'm on a "Calvinist trajectory". Simple nonsense.

 

You keep making this claim over and over again but do nothing to substantiate it. I'm open to be convinced but you'll have to do a lot more than merely emphatically make the claim.

The wages of sin is death.
Without the shedding of blood (death) there is no remission of sins.
Jesus' death paid the ransom for many
The reason it had to be God the Son on the cross is because nothing else was of sufficient value to pay the debt.
If I call upon the name of the Lord (i.e. acknowledge that I am in need of a savior and that He is that savior) and believe that God raised Him from the dead, I will be saved - period.

I don't care what you call it other than, "the truth". If that's penal substitution then fine by me. All I can tell you is that I did not get it from Calvin.

In short, you need to define your terms and substantiate your claims with evidence and actual arguments where the dots are actually connected because I don't buy it at all. It is my bible, not Calvin, that tells me that God paid the price that justice demands for sin and that the price he paid is accrued to my account if and when I call upon the name of Jesus and believe that God raised Him from the dead.

 

This wouldn't be true even if your theory about the origins of Penal Substitution are correct.

That just isn't how this works. Penal substitution is NOT a Calvinist distinctive! I don't care what else you do believe, if don't believe that God is utterly immutable or that humans are totally depraved then you ARE NOT any sort of Calvinist whatsoever - period.

Again, just because Calvin taught something doesn't make it false nor does it necessarily make it Calvinism.