I applaud you Amy....both direct & sincere! Well done:thumbs:
-
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
I applaud you Amy....both direct & sincere! Well done:thumbs:
Thank you! :wavey:
It's taken me 53 years to learn that I'm not smarter than God. :laugh: Life is much happier when you learn who's boss.
Two Thoughts.
1. The charge that Calvinism & Open Theism are "bedfellows" is based on the as-yet unproven assumption that if God KNEW of some future event...then he by definition CAUSED it, rather than simply allowed it.
2. I actually don't really know where I stand on this. I am comfortable with either of the following two options:
Last edited by a moderator:
preacher4truth
Active Member
The OP is a total misnomer and misrepresentation, which has been argued and held by several here and rightfully so.
Setting the record straight, Open Theism denies the Omniscience of God, and comes out and states it readily, and is in fact a heresy against the nature and attributes of God.
Omniscience is said to be embraced within Arminian theology, but when the teachings come out, it is denied, using arguments of rationalization, dodging 'the problem of evil', placing God in the 'eternal now' in attempt to justify Him (as if He needs justified!) along with other rationalizing theories that undermine and deny Omniscience.
Omniscience is not only denied in teachings of Armininanism, it is also denied within non-Calvinist theologies as well, as has been seen on here.
Here are a couple of views against Omniscience:
The late Clark Pinnock, a noted Open Theist agrees with Sontag here:
It is easy to see that God here is reduced to having the passions and desires of man, and that His Omniscience is denied based upon ones logic that He too must desire the element of surprise, and via other finite attributes of man.
This reducing God to an anthropocentric level is one of several reasons many embrace the Doctrines of Grace which accept and reveal God in all His Soveriegnty and Glory well above mankind being wholly other. Reformed theology simply embraces the Scriptures presentation of the Godhead knowing all things perfectly, both past, present, and future.
One may not understand all that is entailed in God's Omniscience, but one fact remains; He is Omniscient being totally aware of all events in history both post and pre creation, and of both the 'good' and 'evil', even using secondary means to accomplish His will and purposes, which He also foreknew, even when said means don't sit well within the logic and reason of finite man. Reducing God due to finite reason is becoming a popularized concept that denies the true God of the Scriptures.
Lorraine Boettner on the subtle denial of Omniscience via Arminianism:
What we see is that both Arminianism, much of non-Calvinist theology, and Open Theism all share the same sentiments on this doctrine, and they are the ones who are the strange bedfellows in this case, rather, they are familiar bedfellows. As a matter of fact, some notable Arminians recognize Open Theism as resulting from 'freewill theists' (Arminianism) itself, Roger Olson being one, which is sometimes referred to as "Deformed Arminianism" "Hyper Arminianism" among other names, but nonetheless Open Theism is commonly noted as stemming from Arminianism.
Denial of Omniscience then is the outgrowth from freewillism, which is a tenet of Arminian theology. That this stems from the error of freewillism is one proof that Open Theism could never have come forth from Calvinism or Reformed theology, and, that the two are not strange bedfellows, but rather has it's roots from the errant freewill notion borne from Arminian theology. One could also conclude fairly that the trio of Arminian theology, Open Theism, and Socinianism are all three familiar bedfellows, all three sharing the denial of Omniscience both openly and subtilely.
In conclusion one would be hard pressed to find many Arminians who would come out and implicitly state that God is Omniscient, and knows all things both present, future and past without side notes and issues which they add actually denying this truth altogether.
Setting the record straight, Open Theism denies the Omniscience of God, and comes out and states it readily, and is in fact a heresy against the nature and attributes of God.
Omniscience is said to be embraced within Arminian theology, but when the teachings come out, it is denied, using arguments of rationalization, dodging 'the problem of evil', placing God in the 'eternal now' in attempt to justify Him (as if He needs justified!) along with other rationalizing theories that undermine and deny Omniscience.
Omniscience is not only denied in teachings of Armininanism, it is also denied within non-Calvinist theologies as well, as has been seen on here.
Here are a couple of views against Omniscience:
The late Clark Pinnock, a noted Open Theist agrees with Sontag here:
It is easy to see that God here is reduced to having the passions and desires of man, and that His Omniscience is denied based upon ones logic that He too must desire the element of surprise, and via other finite attributes of man.
This reducing God to an anthropocentric level is one of several reasons many embrace the Doctrines of Grace which accept and reveal God in all His Soveriegnty and Glory well above mankind being wholly other. Reformed theology simply embraces the Scriptures presentation of the Godhead knowing all things perfectly, both past, present, and future.
One may not understand all that is entailed in God's Omniscience, but one fact remains; He is Omniscient being totally aware of all events in history both post and pre creation, and of both the 'good' and 'evil', even using secondary means to accomplish His will and purposes, which He also foreknew, even when said means don't sit well within the logic and reason of finite man. Reducing God due to finite reason is becoming a popularized concept that denies the true God of the Scriptures.
Lorraine Boettner on the subtle denial of Omniscience via Arminianism:
What we see is that both Arminianism, much of non-Calvinist theology, and Open Theism all share the same sentiments on this doctrine, and they are the ones who are the strange bedfellows in this case, rather, they are familiar bedfellows. As a matter of fact, some notable Arminians recognize Open Theism as resulting from 'freewill theists' (Arminianism) itself, Roger Olson being one, which is sometimes referred to as "Deformed Arminianism" "Hyper Arminianism" among other names, but nonetheless Open Theism is commonly noted as stemming from Arminianism.
Denial of Omniscience then is the outgrowth from freewillism, which is a tenet of Arminian theology. That this stems from the error of freewillism is one proof that Open Theism could never have come forth from Calvinism or Reformed theology, and, that the two are not strange bedfellows, but rather has it's roots from the errant freewill notion borne from Arminian theology. One could also conclude fairly that the trio of Arminian theology, Open Theism, and Socinianism are all three familiar bedfellows, all three sharing the denial of Omniscience both openly and subtilely.
In conclusion one would be hard pressed to find many Arminians who would come out and implicitly state that God is Omniscient, and knows all things both present, future and past without side notes and issues which they add actually denying this truth altogether.
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me ask you this;
If God wanted to know everything certainly there is no denying that He could. Yet does He want to? I ask because of this passage;
Gen 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
Gen 11:5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
Gen 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
My question is why if God knew what man was doing did He even bother to go look?. He already knew. Doesn't make much sense unless you say God must have doubted His own Knowledge. Going to look shows curiosity doesn't it?
MB
Hi Amy G, name calling will not alter the truth. Either everything is predestined, the view of Hyper-Calvinists, or everything is not predestined is the view of All arminians and most Calvinists.
There is nothing complicated about it, if everything is predestined then our sins are predestined and God therefore is the author of sin.
Pretty simple really.
Calvinists use the word sovereign as code for exhaustive determinism, God has predestined everything. It is not that I do not understand, you do not understand, no one can understand, it is a logical impossiblity. Your mind is every bit as finite and limited to time and space as mine. There is no secret answer, you have been sold a bill of goods.
You are the one claiming special knowledge of the mind of God, I am sticking with what God's word says. So the shoe is on the other foot.
The premise that because some aspects of God are unknowable, that His revelation is meaningless because we cannot understand it is simply silly. Anyone pushing any false doctrine could dismiss God's word with such a scriptural nullification argument.
There is nothing complicated about it, if everything is predestined then our sins are predestined and God therefore is the author of sin.
Pretty simple really.
Calvinists use the word sovereign as code for exhaustive determinism, God has predestined everything. It is not that I do not understand, you do not understand, no one can understand, it is a logical impossiblity. Your mind is every bit as finite and limited to time and space as mine. There is no secret answer, you have been sold a bill of goods.
You are the one claiming special knowledge of the mind of God, I am sticking with what God's word says. So the shoe is on the other foot.
The premise that because some aspects of God are unknowable, that His revelation is meaningless because we cannot understand it is simply silly. Anyone pushing any false doctrine could dismiss God's word with such a scriptural nullification argument.
Reply to 12 Strings;
First, why are they bedfellows? Not because of foreknowledge but because Calvinism claims everything is predestined! If everything is not predestined, that is open theism to a limited degree. So all non-Hyper Calvinists are open theists because they rightly assert God is not the author of sin. Now many will say God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. This assertion is silly. If our sin is predestined, then God is the author. To try to hide behind the aspects of God that are unknowable is simply shuck and jive.
Second, I believe God has not predestined everything. And if He has not, then open theism is the biblical view, no matter how many Calvinists shout heresy. You can run but you cannot hide from your own mind. God answered the prayers of those in Nineveh, changing what He had said He would do.
Yes, God knew that Adam would sin and bring about the fall of mankind, because before the foundation of the world Christ was known as the Lamb of God.
And Yes, when God created mankind, He created mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices, so we could choose to love God and ascribe to Him the glory due His name. If we were pull string puppets, the Calvinist model, our love would not bring glory to God. Therefore in accordance with God's purpose of creation, He created us with the capacity for autonomous choices.
But next you miss the mark. Proving God predestines some things, does not suggest in the slightest God predestines all things.
God Predestined everything that ever happens, somehow incorporating men's sinful and righteous actions into his master plan in a way we will never fully understand. Here you again appeal to a logical impossibly. God predestines our sin yet it is ok for us to be blamed for our predestined acts. Sorry but that dog will not hunt.
The fact that you say you are comfortable with asserting what you cannot understand as truth, but reject what you can understand based on God's word is sad. Jesus said things happen by chance, thus everything is not predestined.
I know it is difficult to accept that all these scholars for 400 years could not grasp the truth of God's word, but it is not as bad as all thought. The Arminians rejected the "everything is predestined view" and while I reject their "fix" it at least allows man to make autonomous choices and thus does not by logical necessity claim God is the author of sin.
First, why are they bedfellows? Not because of foreknowledge but because Calvinism claims everything is predestined! If everything is not predestined, that is open theism to a limited degree. So all non-Hyper Calvinists are open theists because they rightly assert God is not the author of sin. Now many will say God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. This assertion is silly. If our sin is predestined, then God is the author. To try to hide behind the aspects of God that are unknowable is simply shuck and jive.
Second, I believe God has not predestined everything. And if He has not, then open theism is the biblical view, no matter how many Calvinists shout heresy. You can run but you cannot hide from your own mind. God answered the prayers of those in Nineveh, changing what He had said He would do.
Yes, God knew that Adam would sin and bring about the fall of mankind, because before the foundation of the world Christ was known as the Lamb of God.
And Yes, when God created mankind, He created mankind with the ability to make autonomous choices, so we could choose to love God and ascribe to Him the glory due His name. If we were pull string puppets, the Calvinist model, our love would not bring glory to God. Therefore in accordance with God's purpose of creation, He created us with the capacity for autonomous choices.
But next you miss the mark. Proving God predestines some things, does not suggest in the slightest God predestines all things.
God Predestined everything that ever happens, somehow incorporating men's sinful and righteous actions into his master plan in a way we will never fully understand. Here you again appeal to a logical impossibly. God predestines our sin yet it is ok for us to be blamed for our predestined acts. Sorry but that dog will not hunt.
The fact that you say you are comfortable with asserting what you cannot understand as truth, but reject what you can understand based on God's word is sad. Jesus said things happen by chance, thus everything is not predestined.
I know it is difficult to accept that all these scholars for 400 years could not grasp the truth of God's word, but it is not as bad as all thought. The Arminians rejected the "everything is predestined view" and while I reject their "fix" it at least allows man to make autonomous choices and thus does not by logical necessity claim God is the author of sin.
Did you see the massive post by yet another Calvinist trying to change the subject? If God predestines everything, God is the author of sin.
If God does not predestine everything, that is open theism to a limited degree. This truth is what the Calvinists will not address, but instead try to derail the thread using every trick in their play book.
Lorraine Boettner believes everything is predestined, which makes God the author of sin.
If God does not predestine everything, that is open theism to a limited degree. This truth is what the Calvinists will not address, but instead try to derail the thread using every trick in their play book.
Lorraine Boettner believes everything is predestined, which makes God the author of sin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi MB, your observation is a good one. One of the many ways scripture can be nullified is to claim God did not mean what He said. Every passage where God looks to find something out is said to be fiction, God really knew and just presented Himself as if He did not. If we embrace such tools, we do not believe in the Bible, but in our own invention.
AMYG has joined the longlist here on BB that have seen you post error after error, and she called you on it. Not to mention Archangel that totally exposed your bogus posts...showing verse by verse that your understanding of the greek was 100% false....boy was that embarassing:thumbsup::laugh:
I post from the confession of faith, and you cannot grasp it:thumbsup:
no one except acf buys your twaddle,shuck and jive, and fiddlesticks
thats all FOLKS:laugh:
preacher4truth
Active Member
:laugh: :laugh: :wavey:
The denial around here is hilarious.
I see van lamely refers to my post as long ('massive post') missing the OP when in fact it centers on the fallacious premise of the OP, and dismantles it's false theory, showing that Calvinism could never be a bedfellow of Open Theism. Instead of Calvinism being akin to Open Theism heresy, it is well known that Arminian theology is the root of Open Theism/Open Theism is the offspring of Arminian theology. Fact.
He'll use anything as an excuse to not look at truth. Note he won't address the facts within it, but instead makes a post to ridicule.
Typical.
Anyhow, the OP is a complete misrepresentation of Calvinism. The fact is Arminian theology, Open Theism, and Socinianism are all bedfellows.
The denial around here is hilarious.
I see van lamely refers to my post as long ('massive post') missing the OP when in fact it centers on the fallacious premise of the OP, and dismantles it's false theory, showing that Calvinism could never be a bedfellow of Open Theism. Instead of Calvinism being akin to Open Theism heresy, it is well known that Arminian theology is the root of Open Theism/Open Theism is the offspring of Arminian theology. Fact.
He'll use anything as an excuse to not look at truth. Note he won't address the facts within it, but instead makes a post to ridicule.
Typical.
Anyhow, the OP is a complete misrepresentation of Calvinism. The fact is Arminian theology, Open Theism, and Socinianism are all bedfellows.
Last edited by a moderator:
Name calling? I didn't call anyone a name. ???
I can't explain how God does everything. And quite frankly, it gives me comfort to know that God is infinitely more intelligent, loving and just than I am. God must be sovereign and in control in order to bring about all His plans, from creation to the day He puts His enemies under His feet. But that doesn't mean that He has created us as mindless robots or plays a cosmic chess game with us as His pawns. You have to resort to that description of our beliefs because the truth is....that you don't know how He does it either!
That's not simple. That's just stupid.
I never claimed any special knowledge. In fact I claimed a LACK of knowledge. The "other foot" is in your mouth. :laugh:
I never said God's revelation is meaningless. You are making stuff up.
I said we cannot understand everything God does. He is far above us in ALL ways. You cannot put God in a box and think you've got Him all figured out. HE is the potter, YOU are the clay.
Another good post Amyg and P4T:type::thumbsup::applause:
quantumfaith
Active Member
Ever heard the expression "pot calling the kettle black". Your post is so full of fallacy one can hardly read it. Speaking of reading, my suspicion is that you did not read the OP, or lack understanding of the idiomatice phrase of "strange bedfellows". Thus here is the definition:
If two people or groups make strange bedfellows, they are connected in a particular activity though they are very different and would not usually have the same opinions or be seen together.
"It is well known that Arminianism is the root of Open Theism" (FAIL)
Arminianism was a response to perceived issues with the dogma of the reformers.
All you can do seemingly is criticize and make declarations.
I agree that it is not simple. Although...I think if you do some looking into "Hard Determinism", along with the "Problem of Evil" and learn to recognize how these relate to "Theological Fatalism" you might gain some knowledge that might be of some help to you. Just sayin.
P.S. I also agree about "all" His attributes, not to deny His Omnibenevolence for strict adherence to a particular view of Omniscience would be part of this, of course.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
As have I, but I'm not going to continue to repost them in defense of Baptist Theology on a board where ONLY those who accept Baptist theology are supposed to be participating. Read the Board's Statement of Faith. You are clearly in opposition to it so please take this discussion elsewhere. Thank you.
No, I say some aspects are mysterious but revelations of BOTH are still true. You may be confusing me with others...
How is appealing to mystery claiming knowledge from outside the box? Its an admission that we can't know all things outside the box so we shouldn't draw conclusions that the scriptures don't draw for us.
Incorrect. I believe the revelations where he interacts within time and space with his creation AND i believe the revelations where he knows the ends from the beginning. I just don't pretend to be able to fully explain how both of those are true and work together logically in our finite understanding.
Wrong. I just don't deny revelations regarding his omniscience because of this passage. i accept both truths. You only accept the one that fits logically within your construct. You are doing what you accuse me of and don't even seem able to see it.
Jesus said in John 3:11 that those who present the gospel know what they are talking about, rather than pushing what they do not understand.
Skandelon, you believe everything is not predestined, therefore you are an open theist to a limited degree. Are you saying your views are inconsistent with BB rules? I have stuck to presenting the Arminian party line in this thread.
I support my views with specific scripture. You made a claim and I refuted it from scripture.
How do you know what you do not understand is superior to what you can understand? Secret knowledge!
Next you misrepresent scripture, it reads God declares the end from the beginning, not knows the end from the beginning.
And finally you close with God did not know and yet knew.
Folks, this is not the orthodox view of God. He means what He says and can be trusted. His Word is profitable for instuction, rather than to be dismissed as teaching incomprehensible doctrine.
Skandelon, you believe everything is not predestined, therefore you are an open theist to a limited degree. Are you saying your views are inconsistent with BB rules? I have stuck to presenting the Arminian party line in this thread.
I support my views with specific scripture. You made a claim and I refuted it from scripture.
How do you know what you do not understand is superior to what you can understand? Secret knowledge!
Next you misrepresent scripture, it reads God declares the end from the beginning, not knows the end from the beginning.
And finally you close with God did not know and yet knew.
Folks, this is not the orthodox view of God. He means what He says and can be trusted. His Word is profitable for instuction, rather than to be dismissed as teaching incomprehensible doctrine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amy G, you claim the incomprehensible is superior to the comprehensible, and the reason the incomprehensible is superior is your secret Gnostic knowledge. I grew up with the admonition to not buy a pig in a poke, but you are telling me, Van, trust me, buy the pig in the poke. What would the Bereans say? 
Did I say you said God's word is meaningless? Nope so yet another false charge,
Is it heresy to say everything is not predestined?
Is it heresy to say God's word is meaningless because hidden below what is actually said is an incomprehensible truth that nullifies it?
Did I say you said God's word is meaningless? Nope so yet another false charge,
Is it heresy to say everything is not predestined?
Is it heresy to say God's word is meaningless because hidden below what is actually said is an incomprehensible truth that nullifies it?
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status