Arminianism Ultimately Leads to Open Theology

My analogy was focusing on one aspect of God's character. His foreknowledge of events. Just like an analogy about God being like a shepherd focuses on one part of His character. You applied my analogy to His omnipotence which is not fair to my analogy, or to the analogy about the shepherd for that matter.

I am well aware of the view which states: If God created it knowing it he must have ordained it to be. But that is merely speculation. The Bible never draws these man made logical conclusions. In fact, the Bible seems to be careful that God is not seen as being the one responsible for man's sinful choices though the logic of your human reason determines that he must.

If God knew you were going to stub your toe does that mean that God must have made that happen?

If God knew that Bill Clinton was going to commit adultery does that mean that God must have made that happen? You seem to argue that it does, which makes God a tempter of evil and responsible for sin. The Bible clearly denies this reasoning.

Permitting doesn't mean causing.

Working out all things for His people in know way indicates God complete control over all happening. I agree all things must pass through his premissive will, but again I deny that must conclusively mean God is the cause of all things.

I was showing the point that God, if He so desires, could know future events without "controlling" or being the one held responsible for them.

Your theology is what is ridiculous. You're willing to accept your self made paradoxes without accepting the true paradoxes of scripture which have to do with God's foreknowledge of events not necessiarly dictatiing his cause for those events. Since God is truly ominpotent He could have created a system in which he maintains his sovereignty while giving up some control to his creation. Afterall, we know that God allows the prince of darkness rule his world there must be some idea of God self limiting his control over certain events.

 

I won’t say I’ve proved it, but I do think you make a valid point… Those who reject Calvinism for biblical reasons and reject classic Arminianism for biblical reasons will often find Open Theism as an attractive synthesis of the biblical materials. Yet, I don’t think you can make the case that those who reject Calvinism will necessarily embrace Open Theism if they are theological and logically consistent. There are simply too many variables.

 

A couple of problem Dallas. There is nothing secret about the fact that Pharoah wasn't going to let those people go. The scripture tells us plainly that he won't. Second, the scripture specifally says that God hardened Pharoah's heart and thus was the cause of his stubbornness for at least part of the time. Why? To demonstrate his glory (funny its usually the Calvinists that is arguing this side )

Don't you see Dallas that its your view of total depravity that creates the tension of God's Sovereignty / human responsiblity and the accusations that God "ordains" sin. Just look at Nicks arguments, he pretty much comes right out and says that what ever God foreknows he permits and thus ordains, this must include sin unless somehow God doesn't foreknow and permit man's sin.

If you force God to ordain all that he foreknows then God must ordain sin. I don't see that supported in scripture.

It's my view of depravity that reconciles these tensions. Man is completely responsible because man is able to respond to God's commands to come. Yet, God gets all the glory because he did all the work and faith is not worthy of boasting (Roman 3:27-31). Though man has a choice God remains Sovereign because He sovereignly desired and planned it that way.

 

A couple of problem Dallas. There is nothing secret about the fact that Pharoah wasn't going to let those people go. The scripture tells us plainly that he won't. Second, the scripture specifally says that God hardened Pharoah's heart and thus was the cause of his stubbornness for at least part of the time. Why? To demonstrate his glory (funny its usually the Calvinists that is arguing this side )

Don't you see Dallas that its your view of total depravity that creates the tension of God's Sovereignty / human responsiblity and the accusations that God "ordains" sin. Just look at Nicks arguments, he pretty much comes right out and says that what ever God foreknows he permits and thus ordains, this must include sin unless somehow God doesn't foreknow and permit man's sin.

If you force God to ordain all that he foreknows then God must ordain sin. I don't see that supported in scripture.

It's my view of depravity that reconciles these tensions. Man is completely responsible because man is able to respond to God's commands to come. Yet, God gets all the glory because he did all the work and faith is not worthy of boasting (Roman 3:27-31). Though man has a choice God remains Sovereign because He sovereignly desired and planned it that way. </font>[/QUOTE]I see the problem in the first instance, but reject the thought that God is the cause, or that he has ordained sin. In fact, I believe God gave to Adam a command and Adam disobeyed this command by his then free-will. I believe that God knew this was going to happen, but I also believe this gives God greater glory than the original condition into which Adam was created.

You cannot believe these things because to believe these remove the idea you have of man to redeem himself by his will.

Bro. Dallas

 

You can debate with Nick about the whole God must ordain everything that he foreknows issue, I don't see that idea supported in scripture either.

Your comments concerning God's glory seem to assume that God can somehow receive more glory for himself by choosing to save some while leaving others to be condemned than He could receive by providing salvation for all man and allowing them to choose whether or not to receive it. How do you come to that conclusion?

 

Prior to the fall, man walked with God in the Garden of Eden. Man knew God, but not the love of God, man knew God, but not the mercy of God, man knew God, but not the grace of God, man knew God, but not the forgiveness of God, man knew God, but not the longsuffering of God, man knew God, but not the justice of God, man knew God, but not the righteousness of God, man knew God, but not the peace of God.

In short man knew God, but not the Glory of God.

Bro. Dallas

 

I'm not sure how that addresses my question, because I don't disagree with what you have said, "God bound all men over to disobeidence so that He might have mercy on them ALL." How does man come to know all these things of God? By the mercy he gives to all. Again, you never show how God receives more glory by choosing some and judging the rest rather that choosing all and allowing them all entrance through faith.

If God didn't all all men entrance then he is a respector of persons and men have an excuse when that stand in judgment. They can truthfully say, "I was born that way and I couldn't believe you because of the nature you planned to be imputed on to me. No, I wasn't willing but its because your sovereignty chose that I wouldn't be willing. So, I have an excuse."

 

I suspect you know this, but I am not claiming that God ordains sin, at least not in the way others are twisting the meaning.

By foreknowing that He will permit a sinful act, he foreordains that act to occur. Thus, for example, it was foreordained that Judas would betray Jesus, and it could not have occurred any other way.

To say that this means he "ordains" the sin as in "approves of it" ignores the fact that He does not originate the sin, nor does He allow it to stand in isolation. He may use it to accomplish His good purpose, as in, "you meant it for evil but God meant it for good." And for all I know, He may simply punish some sins without using them (whether He uses every sin to His glory is something I cannot possibly know). But the fact that He foreordains that sins will occur does not mean He originates the sins or approves of the sins.

 

I wasn't attempting to twist your meaning, but just show the inconsistancy of your reasoning in regard to foreordaination.

I agree with this. Now, that you have explained "ordains" might mean "approves of it" instead of meaning He "caused it" I can accept that.

But, why can't we explain God's foreordaination of man's choice to follow Christ in the same manner you have explained God's foreordaination of man's choice to sin?

Do you see the inconsistancy? You argue that God can foreknow man's choice to sin without being the direct "cause" of it, yet Calvinists seem to insist that God's foreknowledge of man's choice to follow Christ dictates that God directly caused it, while not causing it for others thus creating the paradox that the scripture doesn't afford.

 

You could, and it might even be more consistent from the point of view of human reasoning. But it would only be partially consistent with what the Bible says.

That's not what Calvinists assert at all, so if it is inconsistent, it's because you've made it so. .

 

Ok, where in scripture does it tell us that God's foreordaination of our choice to follow Him must mean his "causing it" rather than his "permitting" it as He does with our sinful choices?

I've heard Calvinists in response to Arminian's "foreknowledge of faith" view argue that this foreknowledge presents the same paradoxes for us as it does for them and it is clear that is not true by this discussion. Can you see that?

I honestly don't remember if you were one who made that argument, but I do know that it has been made numerous times, would you say that you disagree with that argument?

 

We've already been through this. You explain away the plain meaning of Ephesians 1 with your Billist view that Paul forgot to mention who he was talking about until chapter 3. You also dismiss the plain meaning of Romans 8:29. "Those He foreknew" indicates intimate knowledge, not "Those He foreknew would believe." So you will never admit that your view that it's all foreknowledge contradicts scripture, and it is a waste of time for me to debate these verses any more than I have. But the plain, unambiguous scriptures are there.

Hearsay. Produce the quotes and I'll know if they really said anything like that or, as with so many other things, you are simply misrepresenting what took place.

 

Verse 12 says, "those who first trusted in Christ." That's not until chapter 3.

God foreknows all of his creation including those who will believe. But it the word "foreordained" which is also translated "predestined" that we were speaking about. Why is it that God can foreordain our choice to sin without being the cause of it, but he can't foreordain our calling, jusfication, and glorification without causing our choice to believe? That isn't consistant.

I'm on my way out the door right now but I'll take the time later to read back through and see if I can't find an example. I'm really surprised your not fimilar with this argument, its quite common.

 

Very quickly, the traditional arminian view of foreknowledge most emphatically does not help you out. Once God knows something, it is inevitable; there is no longer any chance of change. Therefore, man cannot use his so called "Free will" to change his mind. He is forever set to live his life as God foreknows he will live it. His free will has been compromised because no matter what happens, he will not be able to change his mind. So you have destroyed hte very thing (free will) that you sought to save ... unless you want to say that God's knowledge is faulty.

This is why open theism is the only reasonable alternative to biblical soteriology, usually just called by its familiar name, Calvinism.

 

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. If man were to choose differently, then God would have known differently. The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is that Calvinists believe that God's foreknowledge leads to foreordination of man's choice. Arminians, on the other hand, believe that God's foreknowledge is built upon man's completely free choice. That God knows the outcome, but that doesn't make the choice any less free. It is a hard concept to wrap your mind around, I am aware, but just try. God sees the end from the beginning.

 

Scott,

What you are missing though it what seems so obvious. Once God knows it in eternity past, man cannot change his mind. And by your definition, that compromises his free will. You can say all day long that if man would have made a different choice, that God would have none that. And I agree. But that doesn't help you because your side constantly argues that man must have the ability to make another choice or it is not free will. With your definition of foreknowledge, man has no ability to make a different choice. He has to make the one that God knows he will make. God being "outside of time" doesn't help you because choices are made "in time." Man cannot change his mind in your scenario any more than he can in ours.

I agree that God's knowing the choice doesn't make the choice any less free. But I don't see how you can agree with that. It undermines your whole contention that in order to be free, man has to be able to make any choice at all. In your scenario, his choice was made before he ever got to consider the evidence in actual life.

Additionally, your problems are compounded by the whole "love of God" argument that is used against us. How can this loving God of yours, knowing from eternity past that a person or persons will reject him and spend eternity in hell--how can this loving God allow that person to be created, knowing that they will not choose him? Why doesn't his love prevent them from coming into being and thereby prevent them from rejecting him (which he knows they will do and from which they can make no other choice). Does your God not love these people that he treats them so cruelly??

This is not really even a subtle argument. It seems very obvious unles you are willing to deny God's knowledge.

 

The contradiction is even more apparent when you compare the arminian concept of free will to something like Matthew 10.

Arminians are, in effect, saying, "The Father is sovereign over the big things, such as the life of a sparrow or male pattern baldness, but he leaves the tiny details such as your eternal destiny up to you."

IMO, that takes just a tiny bit of comfort out of the conclusion, "Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows."

 

You're missing the point. You are again operating under the assumption that God works linearly. That is where your whole argument falls.

Man most certainly can choose either way. God knows what that choice will be.

And man CAN choose what he wants. God knows the outcome of that choice, but it doesn't compromise man's free will. Again, you are operating under the assumption that things are completely linear. God is outside of time.

With my definition of foreknowledge, man can make whatever choice he wants.

Wrong again. You are operating on a different assumption than I am. God knows whatever decision he chooses to make - whatever that choice is. It is still a free choice.

What do you mean "doesn't help you?" God's ability to see the end from the beginning allows him to freely know what man will choose, while allowing the freedom to choose whatever he wants. (You know, I think I've said this a bunch of different ways. I'm sorry it is so hard for you to understand. You are just using your own a priori beliefs to interpret mine - that may be why you have a hard time grasping the concept.)

Let me re-phrase, to see if this helps. If man "changes" his mind, God will have seen it. If man does not change his mind, God will have seen it. This does not negate the choice of man - this does not negate his or her freedom.

And I've never contended that. I cannot choose to immediately be in China. It just won't happen. Stop putting words in my mouth.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Why are you putting words and arguments in my mouth that have never been there? This coming from the person who complains everytime an Arminian does this to a Calvinist.

Read this several times: Man's choice is made when he considers the evidence and makes a present decision.

Okay. Stop. Go back and read it a few more times.

Okay. Scenario #1: God creates man and does not give them a choice to follow, which has the effect of them being damned.

Scenario #2: God creates man and gives him a choice to say "yes" or "no." Man says "no." This damns him.

Yep, I'll take scenario #2. God's creation of free beings allowing them to choose is a greater act of love than God's creation of a bunch of robots, who can only choose if he "makes" them choose.

Because he loves them enough to give them a free choice to choose or not to choose. Otherwise, God is creating robots that He knows will always follow.

Because then He creates robots. (Which is also the logical extension of Calvinism, in my opinion.)

God sent His Son to die for them. God offers them the promise of eternal life. God sends the Holy Spirit to convict them of sin. How can you see this as cruel, when in the true Calvinist system, God creates man and does not die for them, does not offer them the promise of eternal life and does not send the Spirit to convict them of sin?

Rose-colored glasses. Rose-colored glasses...

Logical fallacy. I could just as easy say that your ignorance is very obvious. If only you were able to think correctly, you would understand.

See how stupid that statement was - your statement was just as dumb.

 

Very quickly, the traditional arminian view of foreknowledge most emphatically does not help you out. Once God knows something, it is inevitable; there is no longer any chance of change. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with this statement pastor Larry. Once God knows what will happen there is no changing it. But does that necessarily mean he causes all things? That is the debate between Nick and I.

We have come to the point where we agree that foreordaination of an event doesn't necessarily mean that God caused it or is responsible for it. That point in and of itself proves that Arminianism is a viable translation of the texts that speak of foreordaination or "predestination" of those who are saved.

If God can foreordain the sinful choice of man without having caused those choices then it's only reasonable to see that he could foreordain the faithful choice of man without having caused those choices either, thus making man truly responsable for that choice.

This is a silly argument, I'm sorry but God's knowing something will certainly take place does not in any way negate the free will of man. He simply knows what we will choose by our own will, if we "change" our minds he would have known that too, so the conclusions you draw are absurd. If our minds can't wrap around God's omniscients we must rely on the scriptures to tell us who is responsible. I think it's pretty clear that the Bible calls all men to make a choice which any reader (who hasn't been influenced by Calvinism) would naturally think that all men have that capasity. UNLESS somewhere in scripture it clearly teaches that men are not able to respond to the gospel in faith. It doesn't do that except in reference to the temporary hardening of Israel. The rest of your support texts speak of man's being sinful from birth or spiritual dead, which may be a reference to one hardened in sin as well, or unable to please God when in the sin nature, but never that they are unable to respond to the gospel by faith. That is your assumption that creates a very devisive and unnecessary paradox in scripture.

 

Scott,

Most of your post, I will blow right over. However, with all due respect, you are not even close to the issue I am addressing. It is routinely argued by your side that for man to truly have free will, he must be able to choose or not choose salvation of his own "free will" meaning that it is totally unhindered by sin. Since God's knowledge is eternal (existing before the man in question ever came into being), that man's choice is set before he ever darkens this old earth. His choice is set. It is easy to say that "if he had changed his mind God would have known it" but that simply doesn't work because God knew it in eternity past and his life will be lived according to God's knowledge. I agree that God is eternal and outside of earthly time. But man lives in time; his choice is made in time; and that choice is known by God from before the man comes into existence and man cannot change his mind.

Once again, this is a place where you are not thinking through this, IMO. I know you make nice sounding argument and use "outside of time" but it doesn't work. You need to rethink this approach. It is unsound.

I think man has the freedom to choose whatever he wants. And I am not putting words in your mouth. I am giving a perspective on how your "solution" is no real solution. It is fallacious.

But if God's knowledge extends to eternity past, and if his knowledge is infallible, then God knows what man will choose and man cannot change his mind.

Everytime I read it, it says the same thing and it is wrong each time. Reading several times doesn't help that.

I will take choice #2 as well. That is what calvinism teaches. Every man has the image of God and knows that god exists and every man rejects God of his own free will. That is solid biblical teaching and it is exaclty what mainstream calvinism teaches.

So true love means letting someone walk down a path that you know will kill them eternally and choosing not to do anything about it?? I hope God doesn't love me that much.

Yes but look at which one is a true reflection of reality. If God's foreknowledge is real, then man's choice is limited to what the foreknowledge knows. That is the problem with your position. It always will be.