We don't know the future, and since the future is (largely) the outcome of our choices and decisions, free will is valid from our frame of reference.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calvinism and Open Theism are strange bedfellows?
- Thread starter Skandelon
- Start date
- Status
We don't know the future, and since the future is (largely) the outcome of our choices and decisions, free will is valid from our frame of reference.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I agree, I think it misses the mark.
I see a lot of undefined terms flying through the thread. Closed theism, aka Hyper-Calvinism maintains that the future is set in stone, that everything, whatsoever comes to pass, is predestined by God. This view makes God the author of sin. Mainstream Calvinists off a lame brained effort to avoid making God the author of sin by saying mankind can make the choice of which sin they will pick, so God is not the author of sin. Twaddle.
If we take the more orthodox view, God causes or allows all things, then God does not predestine all things, and therefore when man chooses to sin, it is his choice, because he could chose to seek God through faith and obtain mercy. This view, however is Open theism to a limited degree, so all Arminians and many Calvinists are Open Theist to a limited degree.
And finally to offer a paradox as doctrine, i.e. God predestines everything but is not the author of sin, or God knows everything imaginable about the past, present and future, but that does not set the future in the stone of God's perfect knowledge of what will happen, is simply to say "drink the cool-aid" those that reject logical impossibilities simply lack faith.
If we take the more orthodox view, God causes or allows all things, then God does not predestine all things, and therefore when man chooses to sin, it is his choice, because he could chose to seek God through faith and obtain mercy. This view, however is Open theism to a limited degree, so all Arminians and many Calvinists are Open Theist to a limited degree.
And finally to offer a paradox as doctrine, i.e. God predestines everything but is not the author of sin, or God knows everything imaginable about the past, present and future, but that does not set the future in the stone of God's perfect knowledge of what will happen, is simply to say "drink the cool-aid" those that reject logical impossibilities simply lack faith.
God see ALL possible ways that an event could have happened, and also knows what MUST/will actually happen!
Point is that God knows all things period!
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
True, but Calvinism affirms that 'God ordains whatsoever comes to pass' and indeed that would include the desire/nature of fallen man, would it not?
In other words, the statement above which said, "Both accept the idea that God's foreknowledge implies foreordination, and therefore limits human autonomy. Calvinism replies: God has perfect foreknowledge, therefore humans are not autonomous…" Is true depending on how you define 'human autonomy.' To define it as "choosing according one's nature" doesn't mean much when you ask a Calvinist, "what determined their nature?" And the clear answer is "God." So, what have they really said that makes the human 'autonomous?' Lions eat meat instead of salad because its their nature, so do that make them free or autonomous creatures?
You can slice it and dice it however you want, but clearly even by this explanation the Open Theists teach God doesn't have perfect knowledge of the future. Defining it by saying, "God has perfect knowledge of all that can be known," the OTs admits God doesn't know somethings, so I don't see how the statement above is a 'caricature'...
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
They both assume foreknowledge is equal to predetermination. (i.e. 'if God perfectly knew it before creating it then He predetermined it to be')
They go opposite directions to answer the objections to this assumption, but that doesn't change the fact that they both have this assumption in common. My contention is that the assumption itself is unbiblical and false, thus their explanations are likewise unbiblical and false.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
I'd like to know what he means by his statement, "...the reality which God perfectly knows consists of possibilities as well as actualities." Because that statement can't be denied. We do have to affirm that God knows all other possible outcomes and not just the actual one, right? I mean, if He knows everything then He also knows all possible variables that 'could' have been. So, the question would be if this guy believes that God knows the difference of what is actually going to happen in the future, or only the possibilities of what COULD happen in the future? He seems to conveniently leave that objection unanswered.
quantumfaith
Active Member
I agree, it might one of those arenas of "fluff" that OT could force one into. Which is not unlike some of the issues that arise in and among any theological persuasion.
quantumfaith
Active Member
According to Molinism, yes God knew (knows) all possibilities and actualized the most "efficient" one according to His desires.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Yes, having re read the post and your question, I do think that is what Mr. Boyd is saying, God does in fact know all the possible tangents that one can take on anything, as well as knowing the one that will be followed. It may be that this notion that we non OT'ers have regarding OT, that being, that God does not know some things, may in fact be a false understanding on our part of their view.
QF....I would rather error on the side of caution..then just jump into some novelty.
I feel safe and grounded in the word...like Noah in the ark.
These persons are sincere....but
Some one like Doug Wilson is a smart person...very articulate well respected by homeschoolers.....that is what makes it more dangerous.
This is why i urge you as time permits to listen to some of the men who have reacted so strongly against the direction of this teaching.
QF...we can disagree on endtimes, mans will, head coverings, footwashing.... but on justification by faith alone...is like a third rail issue.Deadly serious...do not ADD it to your theology....it is a SUBTRACTION......that causes DIVISION...... my math teaching brother.
convicted1
Guest
Againm you misstate the cal position!
Cals affirm that the foreknowledge of God as regards one getting saved is determined by God, as He intervenes to forechose that person to be ablr to and to actual receive the effectual grace of the cross towards his life....
Salvation has been ordained from/of God, NOT all things, in other things the Lord has His permissive will at play!
And those saved by God are not "robotized" as they freely chose to accept jesus as their Messiah, while the lost freely chose to reject Him!
Last edited by a moderator:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Convicted:
I have not seen around here anyone's system attacking the omniscience of God. Have you? I have not even see OT's attacking this. Have you?
How about our friend van?
quantumfaith
Active Member
Has Van out right declared that God is not omniscient for any other reason than perhaps, he might choose to limit himself? IOW, has Van, or anyone else specifically said that God cannot know something because it is not in his power to do so?
DaChaser1 claims I have attacked omniscience, which of course is a falsehood. I have attacked teaching paradoxes as doctrine, such as God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. Such absurdity.
I have attacked the Arminian view that God can know the future in every detail but that does not set the future in the stone of God's perfect knowledge.
So rather than address either of these two paradoxes, I am named and charged and the dialog shifted from the false doctrines of paradox to my behavior.
The question is - will any person actually address the issue?
I have attacked the Arminian view that God can know the future in every detail but that does not set the future in the stone of God's perfect knowledge.
So rather than address either of these two paradoxes, I am named and charged and the dialog shifted from the false doctrines of paradox to my behavior.
The question is - will any person actually address the issue?
quantumfaith
Active Member
I think 100%, each and every professing Christian, will agree that God has the capacity to create beings capable of making free decisions, i.e not predetermined by God or compatilism, and many will agree He did.
Likewise, I think 100%, each and every professing Christian, will agree God can know beforehand, what decisions we will choose to make given a circumstance. Thus Jesus can tell Peter that one day Peter will stretch out his hands and go where he does not want to go.
The real issues are simple, when God declares what will happen, that future happening is now predetermined. God will cause it to happen. Therefore He will not allow beings capable of making free decisions, to make any decisions that would prevent His declared happening from happening. He can create us with the capacity to make free decisions and then He can override us and cause us to make the decisions He desires, i.e. He can harden the hearts of people to prevent them from accepting the gospel for the purpose of spreading the gospel to the Gentiles.
When Jesus told Peter what would happen in the future, He might have been telling Peter what Peter would freely choose to do based on His knowledge of Peter's character and His foreknowledge that Peter would be anointed with the Holy Spirit. Scripture does not say. But what is certain, what scripture does say, is once Jesus told Peter what Peter would do, that happening was predestined, God had declared that end or future event, from the beginning, i.e. well before the future event. This has nothing to do with God supposedly looking into His divine crystal ball from "outside time" and everything to do with how scripture says God fulfills His prophecies.
So the real issues are:
1) Does God predestine everything? I say no, and that is the orthodox view. Hyper-Calvinism, exhaustive determinism, and closed theology is the unorthodox view in opposition. I say scripture says God causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass, so He does not predestine everything, and therefore is not the author of sin.
2) If God knows what we will decide, can we decide anything else? I say no. Therefore, we have no choice, we are like a person in a room with one door. We may walk in circles, stay for hours, or walk backwards, but when we leave, we will leave through that one door. That is not a choice, that is a future fixed in stone.
The opposing view is that God can look upon our free decision from outside time, as if looking at it after the fact, i.e. as history, and know what we freely chose to do. The problem with this "the time travelers God" invention is that it presupposes that God has created the future on the other side of the veil of time and therefore know it by looking at it from "outside time." If the future exists and is just waiting to be revealed by the veil of time, then the future exists and is set in stone.
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem with the simple Exhaustive Definite Foreknowledge (EDF) of the Arminian view of free will is that it presents a form of catch-22 (or "cyclical redundancy error" 
). It results in a two-way reverse determinism: all things are ultimately determined, but the future, contingent acts of creatures determined "backwards" the knowledge of the Creator. It logically makes no sense.
Calvinism and Open Theism deal with the logical implications of the Creator-creation relationship and the knowledge of God.
Calvinism says that God knows the future because He has ultimately decreed it. Thus, the logical cause-effect relationship (one-way determinism) is allowed to flourish. There is no need for an apology for a logical backwards effect post-determining the cause.
Open Theism says that man has a libertarian free will, and that this necessarily implies that God cannot know with 100% certainty the future contingent acts of the creatures. If God knows them with certainty, they will happen unalterably. If they must happen, the creature does not have a free will and cannot be morally responsible.
As a monergist, I respect the open theists for dealing with the logical implications of the Arminian view of EDF. Of course, in their zeal to hold to libertarian free will, they reduce God to One Who can make mistakes and is less than totally trustworthy.
). It results in a two-way reverse determinism: all things are ultimately determined, but the future, contingent acts of creatures determined "backwards" the knowledge of the Creator. It logically makes no sense.Calvinism and Open Theism deal with the logical implications of the Creator-creation relationship and the knowledge of God.
Calvinism says that God knows the future because He has ultimately decreed it. Thus, the logical cause-effect relationship (one-way determinism) is allowed to flourish. There is no need for an apology for a logical backwards effect post-determining the cause.
Open Theism says that man has a libertarian free will, and that this necessarily implies that God cannot know with 100% certainty the future contingent acts of the creatures. If God knows them with certainty, they will happen unalterably. If they must happen, the creature does not have a free will and cannot be morally responsible.
As a monergist, I respect the open theists for dealing with the logical implications of the Arminian view of EDF. Of course, in their zeal to hold to libertarian free will, they reduce God to One Who can make mistakes and is less than totally trustworthy.
- Status