Not Closed Theology

[Van]

Returning to R. C. Sproul, and his "Chosen by God" he made another false argument concerning whether God chose to offer salvation to all (or some) and the Calvinistic view God chose to compel salvation of some.

He ignored the fact that the view of exhaustive determinism which says even if God only offered salvation to some, God would compel those He knew would be saved.

And he ignored that God's gospel is the power of salvation to those who believe, and therefore would be certain to save some, just as a casino is certain to make a profit. Remember the fields are white for harvest, rather than black due to total spiritual inability.

 

[DaveXR650]

PS Dave you should be looking for a letter from the Calvinist review board. They may want to pull your Calvinist membership card.

I still have my card but they cut the corner off just like we used to do with Cub Scouts if they were playing with fire. I learned Calvinism from reading Spurgeon at first, who was first and foremost a great preacher and then I studied mainly sermons and practical works of Edwards and Bunyan and Owen. If you do it like that you will have a different perspective than someone who started out in the Young, Restless and Reformed camp and learned Calvinism mainly from the philosophical and scriptural teachings of Sproul and White and Piper, and from the internet warrior arguments that were popular. That's just my opinion but I am most comfortable in a Baptist church that respects Sproul and Piper and the great confessions of the Reformed faith but don't wear them on their sleeves. And there are churches like that out there.

I would just say that I think that looking at this from a position of overview the Calvinistic system of theology is good and probably closest to reality. At the same time, when you hear the gospel, the decision you make about whether to come to Christ or reject him is real and it is yours and the consequences are due to you.

And in fairness to Sproul, in his view of inability, you have to remember that the inability is because we don't want to come to Christ. In no other way does he say we lack the ability. I would say understanding this is essential if you care at all where he was coming from. You can't come to Christ on your own because and only because you don't want to. To quote Sproul again, " He cannot choose Christ precisely because he cannot act against his own will. He has no desire for Christ. He cannot choose what he does not desire. His fall is great. It is so great that only the effectual grace if God working in his heart can bring him to faith." And that part I fully believe.

 

[Silverhair]

I still have my card but they cut the corner off just like we used to do with Cub Scouts if they were playing with fire. I learned Calvinism from reading Spurgeon at first, who was first and foremost a great preacher and then I studied mainly sermons and practical works of Edwards and Bunyan and Owen. If you do it like that you will have a different perspective than someone who started out in the Young, Restless and Reformed camp and learned Calvinism mainly from the philosophical and scriptural teachings of Sproul and White and Piper, and from the internet warrior arguments that were popular. That's just my opinion but I am most comfortable in a Baptist church that respects Sproul and Piper and the great confessions of the Reformed faith but don't wear them on their sleeves. And there are churches like that out there.

I would just say that I think that looking at this from a position of overview the Calvinistic system of theology is good and probably closest to reality. At the same time, when you hear the gospel, the decision you make about whether to come to Christ or reject him is real and it is yours and the consequences are due to you.

And in fairness to Sproul, in his view of inability, you have to remember that the inability is because we don't want to come to Christ. In no other way does he say we lack the ability. I would say understanding this is essential if you care at all where he was coming from. You can't come to Christ on your own because and only because you don't want to. To quote Sproul again, " He cannot choose Christ precisely because he cannot act against his own will. He has no desire for Christ. He cannot choose what he does not desire. His fall is great. It is so great that only the effectual grace if God working in his heart can bring him to faith." And that part I fully believe.

As I have mentioned before I had not even heard of the A vs C fight until a few years ago. But since then it has been a eye opener. Where you say you came to understand Calvinism through the words on Spurgeon, Owen and Edwards etc. I came to the opposite understanding by reading the bible. I do not find the God of Calvinism in scripture.

I do like Spurgeon's work but as with any man's work I do not use it to inform me of what the Holy Spirit is saying. I learned early on that the bible is it's own best commentary.

What you have quoted from Sproul shows his slanted view that comes from Augustine and Calvin not the bible. God expects that man can hear the truth and respond to it. We are told over and over that the gospel message is the power of God for salvation. Why would Christ tell people to repent if they could not do so?

The logic or should I say the lack of logic that I see in Calvinism is what makes me reject that view. Calvinism denies clear scripture in favor of the teaching of Augustine and Calvin.

From what I have read of your posts I would venture a guess that it is your allegiance to Owen, Edwards and such rather the teachings of Calvin that hold you to your calvinist view. I may be wrong but I can only hope you will see the light and come out of the dark side.

 

[Silverhair]

@Van look at some of the things you have posted here.

I said, "I said God allows rather than causes some of what comes to pass." That is anti-Calvinist doctrine.

If God only allows some things to happen rather than cause them to happen it is still Him controlling all that happens. That is Calvinism

I said, "we have an autonomous will able to choose within the allowance of God." Choose refers to a choice between more than one option.

I agree that is what you would call man's free will, the ability to choose otherwise.

I said, "since God knows what He chooses to know, He is not the author of sin." That is anti-Calvinist doctrine.

God not bringing to mind our sins does not mean He does not know what our sins were. Also you will have to expand on this strange idea that God choosing not to know means He is not the author of sin. Since God is omniscient there is nothing that He does not know. If He did not know all things then He would have to learn and could be surprised by somethings. Are you claiming that God is not omniscient?

Arminian views are wrong in the same way Calvinist views are wrong, such as "God knows everything imaginable" and there is nothing He does not know. Also, both hold that lost people are unable to understand and appropriately respond to spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel, unless "enabled" with "irresistible grace" or "prevenient grace." Both these views are fiction.

Good thing I am not an A or C. But you say things here that are not biblical which you will have to work out for yourself.

Basically your views mirror Calvinism while my views oppose Calvinism.

Well I will just add you the list of people that have said I am something that I am not.

 

[DaveXR650]

From what I have read of your posts I would venture a guess that it is your allegiance to Owen, Edwards and such rather the teachings of Calvin that hold you to your calvinist view. I may be wrong but I can only hope you will see the light and come out of the dark side.

What happened with me was that I became very dissatisfied with the view my Baptist church had that living the Christian life was optional and after reciting a certain prayer you could rest assured you were saved no matter what you did or believed. While you were the determining factor in your "decision" to come to Christ, once that happened nothing could change that even if you decided to turn away. When I looked into it everyone who refuted this seemed to be a Calvinist or an old fashioned Methodist or at least a free will Baptist and all these groups had one thing in common - a Puritan influence. I have never felt the arguments over the degree of determinism or the extent of the atonement to be vitally important at the practical level of our lives. So while I do respect Calvinism as a theology I am truly not offended when someone else rejects it.

 

[Silverhair]

What happened with me was that I became very dissatisfied with the view my Baptist church had that living the Christian life was optional and after reciting a certain prayer you could rest assured you were saved no matter what you did or believed. While you were the determining factor in your "decision" to come to Christ, once that happened nothing could change that even if you decided to turn away. When I looked into it everyone who refuted this seemed to be a Calvinist or an old fashioned Methodist or at least a free will Baptist and all these groups had one thing in common - a Puritan influence. I have never felt the arguments over the degree of determinism or the extent of the atonement to be vitally important at the practical level of our lives. So while I do respect Calvinism as a theology I am truly not offended when someone else rejects it.

I could never understand the OSAS view. Belief is a active verb so if you do not believe then how can you think you will be saved. God wants all to be saved but will not force anyone to be saved.

I have to differ with you on the importance of determinism and the extent of the atonement. Those are two of the main points where I find that Calvinism errors to the greatest extent. If God has determined who will be saved and by extension who will be lost then you have to question a number of statements in the bible let alone the reason for the cross itself.

You just attended the wrong Baptist Church. I have been in some where you had to wonder if they even had a bible and others that just made your spirit sing. I was taught to trust what God said not what some man told me God said. You may have noticed that God has the habit of repeating those things that He considers important.

I happen to have been raised in a Baptist environment but I consider myself a disciple of Christ first and foremost. Arminian, Calvinist, Puritan or even Baptist are just labels. that do not really say who we are and are more often use in a pejorative manner.

 

[Van]

If God only allows some things to happen rather than cause them to happen it is still Him controlling all that happens. That is Calvinism

Contrary to the charges, Arminian theology strongly affirms the sovereignty of God in all things. Arminian scholar Roger Olson writes,

“CLASSICAL Arminianism goes far beyond belief in general providence to include affirmation of God’s intimate and direct involvement in every event of nature and history. The only thing the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty necessarily excludes is God’s authorship of sin and evil. Faithful followers of Arminius have always believed that God governs the entire universe and all of history. Nothing at all can happen without God’s permission, and many things are specifically and directly controlled and caused by God. Even sin and evil do not escape God’s providential governance in classical Arminian theology. God permits and limits them without willing or causing them.”​

So while some Calvinists rewrite the meaning of "Ordain" to claim it does not mean to predestine our every sin, others wrap the fallacy that God "ordains" (predestines) whatsoever comes to pass, in "mystery" wrapping paper to enable cognitive dissonance.

I agree that is what you would call man's free will, the ability to choose otherwise.

I called it autonomous will, stop trying to put your words in my mouth.

Inherent Omniscience is a well known view of those who have studied Divine Knowledge.

But you say things here that are not biblical which you will have to work out for yourself.

I said some lost people can hear and understand the milk of the gospel, when exposed to God's revelation through His witnesses. That is why the fields are white for harvest.

I said your views mirror Calvinism. Here is a specific example:

Since God is omniscient there is nothing that He does not know.

This denies scripture that says Jesus (God the Son) did not know the time of His return, and that God can remember no more our sins. And remember when God said "now I know" concerning Abraham's faith? Before "now" God must not have known.

Your unbiblical view of God being "all knowing" mirrors Calvinism's view. Full Stop.

 

[Piper]

I did not realize you are such a person.

I said, "I said God allows rather than causes some of what comes to pass." That is anti-Calvinist doctrine.

I said, "we have an autonomous will able to choose within the allowance of God." Choose refers to a choice between more than one option.

I said, "since God knows what He chooses to know, He is not the author of sin." That is anti-Calvinist doctrine.

Arminian views are wrong in the same way Calvinist views are wrong, such as "God knows everything imaginable" and there is nothing He does not know. Also, both hold that lost people are unable to understand and appropriately respond to spiritual milk, the fundamentals of the gospel, unless "enabled" with "irresistible grace" or "prevenient grace." Both these views are fiction.

Basically your views mirror Calvinism while my views oppose Calvinism.

You are allowed to hold false views of God. That is your prerogative. Believing in a god who is not omniscient, however, leads you to a dualism that is totally unbiblical. There is someone or something outside of the understanding of God, from your viewpoint, the "free will" of man. That makes him into a being who can trump God. Interesting world you believe in.

 

[Van]

You are allowed to hold false views of God. That is your prerogative. Believing in a god who is not omniscient, however, leads you to a dualism that is totally unbiblical. There is someone or something outside of the understanding of God, from your viewpoint, the "free will" of man. That makes him into a being who can trump God. Interesting world you believe in.

Yet another utterly false charge from the nothing-burger crowd.
My view of God is based on scripture alone.
Claiming Inherent Omniscience is not Omniscient is just another mindless "taint so" claim.
Claiming my view suggests or says there is something "outside" of the understanding of God is utterly false.
Claiming my view suggests or says people have "free will" ignores my posts that assert otherwise. We operate autonomously within the purview God allows. Is that too difficult to grasp?

Folks, the topic of this thread is "Not Closed Theology" the biblically based view that God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. Thus God allow people to sin rather than predestines them to sin, so God is not the author of sin.

As a sidelight, I believe if God arranges for someone to do sinful acts, such as "nail Christ to the cross," these actions in accordance with God's predetermined plan will not be punished. However, it is certainly true, unless given to Christ, all these people will experience "eternal punishment."

Another sidelight is to define "God's sovereignty as God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. In post 10, this view was claimed to be wrong. However when this view was identified as the view of Dr. R. C Sproul, crickets. Not one Calvinist leaning poster claimed the view was wrong.

 

[DaveXR650]

Another sidelight is to define "God's sovereignty as God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. In post 10, this view was claimed to be wrong. However when this view was identified as the view of Dr. R. C Sproul, crickets. Not one Calvinist leaning poster claimed the view was wrong.

I'm not sure on this Van but I think that is the generally accepted view of Calvinists. Where there are differences it is because some Calvinists do believe that God directly causes all that happens. And in our individual minds we will have varying degrees of how we process this as we go through life. Personally, I don't think God directly causes all that happens and some statements by Piper and even Calvin in this regard trouble me. But I think Sproul's statement is on track.

 

[taisto]

[SNIP]
As a sidelight, I believe if God arranges for someone to do sinful acts, such as "nail Christ to the cross," these actions in accordance with God's predetermined plan will not be punished. However, it is certainly true, unless given to Christ, all these people will experience "eternal punishment."

Another sidelight is to define "God's sovereignty as God either causes or allows whatsoever comes to pass. In post 10, this view was claimed to be wrong. However when this view was identified as the view of Dr. R. C Sproul, crickets. Not one Calvinist leaning poster claimed the view was wrong.

One Bible book shows both your sidelights are incorrect.

(Habakkuk 1:5-17)
The Lord replied, “Look around at the nations; look and be amazed! For I am doing something in your own day, something you wouldn’t believe even if someone told you about it. I am raising up the Babylonians, a cruel and violent people. They will march across the world and conquer other lands. They are notorious for their cruelty and do whatever they like. Their horses are swifter than cheetahs and fiercer than wolves at dusk. Their charioteers charge from far away. Like eagles, they swoop down to devour their prey. “On they come, all bent on violence. Their hordes advance like a desert wind, sweeping captives ahead of them like sand. They scoff at kings and princes and scorn all their fortresses. They simply pile ramps of earth against their walls and capture them! They sweep past like the wind and are gone. But they are deeply guilty, for their own strength is their god.”

O Lord my God, my Holy One, you who are eternal— surely you do not plan to wipe us out? O Lord, our Rock, you have sent these Babylonians to correct us, to punish us for our many sins. But you are pure and cannot stand the sight of evil. Will you wink at their treachery? Should you be silent while the wicked swallow up people more righteous than they? Are we only fish to be caught and killed? Are we only sea creatures that have no leader? Must we be strung up on their hooks and caught in their nets while they rejoice and celebrate? Then they will worship their nets and burn incense in front of them. “These nets are the gods who have made us rich!” they will claim. Will you let them get away with this forever? Will they succeed forever in their heartless conquests?

(Habakkuk 2:1-20)
I will climb up to my watchtower and stand at my guardpost. There I will wait to see what the Lord says and how he will answer my complaint.

Then the Lord said to me, “Write my answer plainly on tablets, so that a runner can carry the correct message to others. This vision is for a future time. It describes the end, and it will be fulfilled. If it seems slow in coming, wait patiently, for it will surely take place. It will not be delayed. “Look at the proud! They trust in themselves, and their lives are crooked. But the righteous will live by their faithfulness to God. Wealth is treacherous, and the arrogant are never at rest. They open their mouths as wide as the grave, and like death, they are never satisfied. In their greed they have gathered up many nations and swallowed many peoples. “But soon their captives will taunt them. They will mock them, saying, ‘What sorrow awaits you thieves! Now you will get what you deserve! You’ve become rich by extortion, but how much longer can this go on?’ Suddenly, your debtors will take action. They will turn on you and take all you have, while you stand trembling and helpless. Because you have plundered many nations, now all the survivors will plunder you. You committed murder throughout the countryside and filled the towns with violence. “What sorrow awaits you who build big houses with money gained dishonestly! You believe your wealth will buy security, putting your family’s nest beyond the reach of danger. But by the murders you committed, you have shamed your name and forfeited your lives. The very stones in the walls cry out against you, and the beams in the ceilings echo the complaint. “What sorrow awaits you who build cities with money gained through murder and corruption! Has not the Lord of Heaven’s Armies promised that the wealth of nations will turn to ashes? They work so hard, but all in vain! For as the waters fill the sea, the earth will be filled with an awareness of the glory of the Lord. “What sorrow awaits you who make your neighbors drunk! You force your cup on them so you can gloat over their shameful nakedness. But soon it will be your turn to be disgraced. Come, drink and be exposed! Drink from the cup of the Lord’s judgment, and all your glory will be turned to shame. You cut down the forests of Lebanon. Now you will be cut down. You destroyed the wild animals, so now their terror will be yours. You committed murder throughout the countryside and filled the towns with violence. “What good is an idol carved by man, or a cast image that deceives you? How foolish to trust in your own creation— a god that can’t even talk! What sorrow awaits you who say to wooden idols, ‘Wake up and save us!’ To speechless stone images you say, ‘Rise up and teach us!’ Can an idol tell you what to do? They may be overlaid with gold and silver, but they are lifeless inside. But the Lord is in his holy Temple. Let all the earth be silent before him.”

 

[Piper]

A significant fraction of believers think God has exhaustively predestined whatsoever comes to pass. We are all like actors on a stage, simply mouthing our words and doing our foreordained actions. But the fly in the buttermilk is that such a viewpoint means we are not responsible for our sinful thoughts and actions as they were foreordained by God and we cannot resist His power to compel.
.

This is the problem with people like you. Misrepresentation. An honest theologian accurately represents the view of their opponent.

That is not the view of any Calvinist. It is a straw man, held up to your false views so you can blow it over.

 

[Van]

Once again a large chuck of non-germane scripture is posted as if it refuted the biblical view. LOL

But they [the Babylonians] are deeply guilty, for their own strength is their god.”

Obviously they were guilty of worshiping their own strength "before" God used them for His purpose. Will God let the Babylonians get away with their sinful behavior? Of course not. But both passages are non-germane as usual.

I believe if God arranges for someone to do sinful acts, such as "nail Christ to the cross," these actions in accordance with God's predetermined plan will not be punished.

God's sovereignty is validated by God either causing or allowing whatsoever comes to pass. ​

 

[Van]

This is the problem with people like you. Misrepresentation. An honest theologian accurately represents the view of their opponent.

That is not the view of any Calvinist. It is a straw man, held up to your false views so you can blow it over.

Yet another false charge, addressing me and not the topic.
Here is what I said:

A significant fraction of believers think God has exhaustively predestined whatsoever comes to pass. We are all like actors on a stage, simply mouthing our words and doing our foreordained actions."​

Here is a link supporting that view:
Does God Control All Things All the Time?

 

[taisto]

Once again a large chuck of non-germane scripture is posted as if it refuted the biblical view. LOL

Obviously they were guilty of worshiping their own strength "before" God used them for His purpose. Will God let the Babylonians get away with their sinful behavior? Of course not. But both passages are non-germane as usual.

I believe if God arranges for someone to do sinful acts, such as "nail Christ to the cross," these actions in accordance with God's predetermined plan will not be punished.

God's sovereignty is validated by God either causing or allowing whatsoever comes to pass. ​

And with the flip of your keyboard, you toss God's word to the side as irrelevant.

God's word proves you wrong and you try to reduce it to unimportant.

Why would anyone take you seriously when you won't take God's word seriously?

Enjoy your hardened heart, Van.

 

[Silverhair]

I called it autonomous will, stop trying to put your words in my mouth..

"The capacity of the will of a rational being to be a law to itself, independently of the influence of any property of objects of volition. More specifically, an autonomous will is said to be free in both a negative and a positive sense." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Well since man is not able to be a law to itself, I will stick with the God given free will that we see in scripture.

I said your views mirror Calvinism. Here is a specific example: This denies scripture that says Jesus (God the Son) did not know the time of His return, and that God can remember no more our sins. And remember when God said "now I know" concerning Abraham's faith? Before "now" God must not have known.

Your unbiblical view of God being "all knowing" mirrors Calvinism's view. Full Stop.

In Hebrews 8:12 and Hebrews 10:17, the apostle brings forth Jeremiah 31:34, in which God says in relation to His new covenant with Israel, "For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." This does not mean that God does not exercise memory with which He has so beneficially endowed His creatures; nor does it mean that when we appear before Him to have our lives reviewed and judged that God will forget all that we have ever done (Romans 14:10; 1 Corinthians 3:11-15; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Revelation 20:11-15). The apportionment of rewards to the believers necessitates God's and their remembrance of their works (James 2:12-13). The Hebrews 8:12 and Hebrews 10:17 passages specifically speak of the new covenant of the Lord with Israel which, being accepted, brings an end to His remembrance by Him regarding whether or not they kept the old covenant. This is equivalent to God forgetting all the sins of the individual before he was saved and ushered into the kingdom of God. However, there is certainly a remembrance of all one's works, whether good or bad (2 Corinthians 5:10), performed during his entire life of faith from the moment he has been attached to the body of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 12:13).
The Complete Word Study Dictionary

Actually my view that God is omniscient is biblical, full stop. Do not believe the bible when it says God declares/knows the end from the beginning.

By some of your comments you seem to be playing that same words games that we see from a number of Calvinists. Van just trust what the bible clearly says.

 

[Silverhair]

You are allowed to hold false views of God. That is your prerogative. Believing in a god who is not omniscient, however, leads you to a dualism that is totally unbiblical. There is someone or something outside of the understanding of God, from your viewpoint, the "free will" of man. That makes him into a being who can trump God. Interesting world you believe in.

@Piper that you deny man's God given free will calls into question your understanding of scripture. When you see the IF / THEN option it requires man's free will, that is unless you think God is just being disingenuous.

 

[Van]

And with the flip of your keyboard, you toss God's word to the side as irrelevant.

God's word proves you wrong and you try to reduce it to unimportant.

Why would anyone take you seriously when you won't take God's word seriously?

Enjoy your hardened heart, Van.

Folks, see any content other than "Van is bad" malarkey?

Here is what I said concerning Habakkuk 1:5-17 and Habakkuk 2:1-20
Obviously they were guilty of worshiping their own strength "before" God used them for His purpose. Will God let the Babylonians get away with their sinful behavior? Of course not. But both passages are non-germane as usual. Neither passage said God will punish those doing God's will for those God arranged actions, but those sinners will be held accountable for prior and subsequent sins.

 

[Van]

"The capacity of the will of a rational being to be a law to itself, independently of the influence of any property of objects of volition. More specifically, an autonomous will is said to be free in both a negative and a positive sense." Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy SNIP

People do not have a "free will" because it is constrained by what God allows. Pretty simple concept.

 

[Silverhair]

@Van you just continue to play word games and then you wonder why I say you sound like a calvinist. Autonomous will = free will. Is that a hard concept for you to grasp?

Yes we operate within the bounds that God has given us. We have a God given free will with which we can evaluate information and make rational choices and we will be held responsible for those choices. Man having a free will does not mean he can save himself or that he can choose never to sin as some calvinists on here like to claim free will must mean.

 

[Van]

@Van you just continue to play word games and then you wonder why I say you sound like a calvinist. Autonomous will = free will. Is that a hard concept for you to grasp?

Yes we operate within the bounds that God has given us. We have a God given free will with which we can evaluate information and make rational choices and we will be held responsible for those choices. Man having a free will does not mean he can save himself or that he can choose never to sin as some calvinists on here like to claim free will must mean.

You are playing word games saying free means operate with the bounds that God has given us. Constrained will is not free.
But a constrained will can still be autonomous. Just say I believe in an autonomous will and we can put this one to bed.

 

[Silverhair]

You are playing word games saying free means operate with the bounds that God has given us. Constrained will is not free.
But a constrained will can still be autonomous. Just say I believe in an autonomous will and we can put this one to bed.

But I am not a law unto myself as your autonomous will would require but I do have a God given free will that allows me to make real choices for which I will be held responsible.

If one had a truly autonomous will then they could save themselves or they could decide not to sin anymore but we both know those things are not possible.