Calvinism and Open Theism are strange bedfellows?

[Skandelon]

Van,

I totally agree on your assessment of compatibilism. I often compare it to animal instinct because it appears to be almost identical. A Lion chooses steak over salad because he was created to desire steak and could not willingly do otherwise.

Regarding Arminianism, I don't know that Arminians have ever gotten together and decided what philosophical system best describes their views. In fact, most appeal to mystery with regard to most of the points you seem to raise against them...though I'm sure there are exceptions.

 

[Van]

Calvinism claims that God's foreknowledge of the future presupposes the future is fixed, making God the author of sin. No Calvinist has posted a rebuttal to Boettner's argument. It is pick your poison all over again, either the future is not fixed or God is the author of sin. Either you are a closed theist or an open theist.

So here are our choices:
1: The future is fixed, we are closed theists and God is the author of sin.

2: The future is not fixed, we are open theists and God is not the author of sin.

Calvinists, other than Hyper Calvinists, and Arminians all want to pick #2, but they cannot explain how God's perfect foreknowledge of the future does not fix the future in the stone of His perfect foreknowledge.Strange bedfellows

 

[Skandelon]

Van, in all sincerity, I would ask you to do a real study of the tenets of Calvinism, for you are arguing against a strawman of yours or someone whom you follow's invention and not the real thing.

With one sentence you describe the Calvinistic position accurately, then with another you blow it out of the water making you a non-coherent theologian and sounding much like a fundamentalistic ignorant nincompoop (not a swear word, an English translitteration of a French term "ne compte plus", that means "no longer of any consequence").

He said 'Compatibilism' not Calvinism. And can you tell us specifically what he said that was misrepresentative of that philosophical system's claims? It sounded pretty accurate to me. Give specifics, otherwise you risk coming over like a "ignorant nincompoop." (as you say)

 

[glfredrick]

He said 'Compatibilism' not Calvinism. And can you tell us specifically what he said that was misrepresentative of that philosophical system's claims? It sounded pretty accurate to me. Give specifics, otherwise you risk coming over like a "ignorant nincompoop." (as you say)

I thought I said it... He lays out a position of compatibilism that is "compatable" with Calvinism, then rips Calvinism as if it holds some other position.

 

[Skandelon]

Van,

Your whole argument is based on linear finite logic. You have to use words like "before" and "prior" as it relates to 'cause and effect' within time and space while talking about an infinite God who is not limited by linear ways of thinking.

The Cals and Openists premise is that if God KNOWS something PRIOR to creating it then He MUST have determined it. Cals try to fix this paradox by just accepting that God works deterministically and Openists try to fix it by limiting God's full knowledge. Both are WRONG because both accept this premise, which is biblically unfounded and beyond our finite reasoning. In other words, you are both basing your beliefs about God's attributes on the finite logic of a philosophical system rather than on what scripture actually says.

God is not limited to your linear constructs.

 

[Skandelon]

I thought I said it... He lays out a position of compatibilism that is "compatable" with Calvinism, then rips Calvinism as if it holds some other position.

Show specifically what he said that doesn't correctly represent compatibilism. Make an actual argument.

 

[glfredrick]

Show specifically what he said that doesn't correctly represent compatibilism. Make an actual argument.

You are reading me wrong. I am AGREEING with Van's stance on compatibilism! I am DISAGREEING with his stance on Calvinism, for in his stance on compatibilism he accurately defines one of the positions OF Calvinism.

 

[Skandelon]

I may be mistaken but don't I remember you defending Compatibilism before? I thought you affirmed it?

 

[glfredrick]

I may be mistaken but don't I remember you defending Compatibilism before? I thought you affirmed it?

Huh? Isn't defending and affirmation one and the same thing?

 

[Skandelon]

Huh? Isn't defending and affirmation one and the same thing?

Yes. That is what I'm asking: Don't you affirm Compatiblism?

 

[glfredrick]

Yes. That is what I'm asking: Don't you affirm Compatiblism?

I do. hence my confusion.

 

[Skandelon]

Compatibilism is like programing, we always choose what we are programmed to choose. God created us with our compatiblistic programming which predetermines our choices. But because God predestined us though compatibilism, He is not responsible for our predestined actions. Hangs together nicely don't you think.

I am AGREEING with Van's stance on compatibilism!

Me: Don't you affirm Compatiblism?

I do.

The three posts above should explain my confusion...

 

[glfredrick]

Me: Don't you affirm Compatiblism?



The three posts above should explain my confusion...

Gotcha... Van doesn't do compatibilism. I mis-read him earlier. Wonder what he does then, for he seems to argue constantly for God's sovereignty and his version of "closed theism." Perhaps another regularly scheduled incoherent position?

 

[DaChaser1]

Van, in all sincerity, I would ask you to do a real study of the tenets of Calvinism, for you are arguing against a strawman of yours or someone whom you follow's invention and not the real thing.

With one sentence you describe the Calvinistic position accurately, then with another you blow it out of the water making you a non-coherent theologian and sounding much like a fundamentalistic ignorant nincompoop (not a swear word, an English translitteration of a French term "ne compte plus", that means "no longer of any consequence").

Van might have a hars time though grasping the tenants of calvinism, as His understanding of the foreknowledge and understand of fthe future by God is more akin to God having "limited Omnscience"

Also think that he has hard time with effects of fall, sin nature of man, and "free will"....

So might just view all that he reads as typically calvinistic "mis interpretation babble!"

 

[Van]

Reply to Skandelon,

Van,

Your whole argument is based on linear finite logic. You have to use words like "before" and "prior" as it relates to 'cause and effect' within time and space while talking about an infinite God who is not limited by linear ways of thinking.

The Cals and Openists premise is that if God KNOWS something PRIOR to creating it then He MUST have determined it. Cals try to fix this paradox by just accepting that God works deterministically and Openists try to fix it by limiting God's full knowledge. Both are WRONG because both accept this premise, which is biblically unfounded and beyond our finite reasoning. In other words, you are both basing your beliefs about God's attributes on the finite logic of a philosophical system rather than on what scripture actually says.

God is not limited to your linear constructs.

I certainly admit my view is based on my finite mind. But everyone's view comes from that same source. To pretend a view represents God's view is simply claiming secret knowledge, Gnostic in nature.

I understand you are saying the impossible is possible with God, but in actuality it is a trust in my conjecture which makes no sense rather than your view which makes sense sort of argument. No sale.

God gave us His revelation and it makes sense, it is not riddled with logical impossibilities or needless paradoxes.

This issue of Arminianism having no basis in sound reasoning has bothered many scholars down through history and various efforts to put Arminianism on sound footing have been made.

 

[DaChaser1]

I certainly admit my view is based on my finite mind. But everyone's view comes from that same source. To pretend a view represents God's view is simply claiming secret knowledge, Gnostic in nature.

I understand you are saying the impossible is possible with God, but in actuality it is a trust in my conjecture which makes no sense rather than your view which makes sense sort of argument. No sale.

God gave us His revelation and it makes sense, it is not riddled with logical impossibilities or needless paradoxes.

This issue of Arminianism having no basis in sound reasoning has bothered many scholars down through history and various efforts to put Arminianism on sound footing have been made.

that is why he gave us his Bible, the revelation of Himself, and especially the revelation of Himself on Jesus!

NO need to base this on human understanding/reasoning...

God Knows ALL things.Period, and can know the Future to a large extant BECAUSE He has already determined many of the events of the outcome!

 

[Van]

As one Calvinist put it, what the Bible says "is meaningless." Calvinism rewrites the bible in accord with the inventions of men. It is totally based on human understanding and reasoning, that is why it pushes paradoxes and contradictions. God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. Go figure. Arminianism comes much closer to biblical truth, but still misses the mark in my opinion.

And DaChaser1, as you put it God knows all things period, therefore He knows the future, and so your "can know the future" is simply misdirection, a shuck and jive assertion. You view is not God knows the future to a large extant, but knows it exhaustively, in every detail.
And therefore, according to Calvinism, God is the author of sin.

 

[Van]

Since the orthodox Baptist view is God is not the author of sin, then by logical necessity, Open Theism to a limited degree is the orthodox Baptist view. Either the future is fixed, set in the stone of God's perfect foreknowledge, using the word unbiblically, or the future is not fixed, which is by definition Open Theism.

Expect continued effort to hide the truth in a shroud of mystery, where logical necessity is jettisoned in favor of shuck and jive.

 

[glfredrick]

I certainly admit my view is based on my finite mind. But everyone's view comes from that same source. To pretend a view represents God's view is simply claiming secret knowledge, Gnostic in nature.

I am shocked and offended. My views CERTAINLY do not stem from YOUR finite mind. You may claim gnostic knowledge -- and you certainly do -- often, but the rest of us typically attempt to reconcile Scripture in accordance with orthodox and not heterodox principles and doctrines.

I understand you are saying the impossible is possible with God, but in actuality it is a trust in my conjecture which makes no sense rather than your view which makes sense sort of argument. No sale.

Are you not the one constantly arguing that both Calvinism and Arminianism rely on logic instead of God's Word? Yet, here you make a PURELY logical conjecture -- and worse -- one not supported in any sense by Scripture, the views of orthodoxy, etc., but rather ONLY by your own grasp and understanding. All I can offer is to pray for you on that...

God gave us His revelation and it makes sense, it is not riddled with logical impossibilities or needless paradoxes.

Actually the word you are seeking is antinomy, and the Word is indeed full of circumstances, situations, and even commands that ONLY God could possibly fulfill. We have UTTERLY NO HOPE of even obeying the new commandments that Jesus uttered in the Sermon on the Mount -- and I believe He intended it that way because our only TRUE hope is in Him, not on anything we may do of our own efforts.

This issue of Arminianism having no basis in sound reasoning has bothered many scholars down through history and various efforts to put Arminianism on sound footing have been made.

Of course, just like all other theological propositions. Most, however, rely on some level of exposition of Scripture in context.

 

[glfredrick]

Since the orthodox Baptist view is God is not the author of sin, then by logical necessity, Open Theism to a limited degree is the orthodox Baptist view. Either the future is fixed, set in the stone of God's perfect foreknowledge, using the word unbiblically, or the future is not fixed, which is by definition Open Theism.

Expect continued effort to hide the truth in a shroud of mystery, where logical necessity is jettisoned in favor of shuck and jive.

You fail to understand open theism.

You also -- AGAIN -- argue FOR logic when at other times you write serious diatribes against those who use logic to shore up their own positions. So, which is it? Logic or not?