Open theism and the atonement

[Winman]

The point is that, if human choices can be put into an if-then formula, how can it be said that they have libertarian free will? Isn't free will defined such that, given any choice, all things being what they are, the agent could choose otherwise? If so, then the choice cannot be determined by God's foreknowledge nor by any particular circumstances or secondary causes.

I don't know how others define free will, but by free will I do not mean a person can not be influenced, even to a great degree coerced by others. But it can never truly be said that a person's choice can be taken away.

For instance, men in the past were persecuted for refusing to baptize their babies, or for being baptized again. They were threatened with death or imprisonment if they did not "repent". This surely puts an influence upon the will, but many men and women chose to die for what they believed.

I always go back to chess, as I feel it is a simple, but fairly accurate analogy. A good chess player can absolutely control the game and to a great degree his opponent's moves. Nevertheless, his opponent always has free choice where he will move within available options. You cannot take this away from your opponent. Your opponent can make poor choices, but they are still his choices.

Are all (or a majority of) the people of Tyre and Sidon of like mind such that they all react the same way given the if-then conditions? If so, how can one conclude that they have libertarian free will? It seems that their choice is indirectly determined by the conditions; yet, Jesus also held them accountable. Sounds like good ol' compatibilism to me.

Well, I think Jesus was speaking of a majority of the people, but especially the spiritual leaders of the community. However, in the account of Nineveh, it was everyone who repented. Of course, they were led and commanded by the king of Nineveh to repent.

Jon 3:5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them.
6 For word came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes.
7 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

Most scripture seems to deal with the leaders of the people. Here the king commanded everyone in the city to repent. So it is fairly safe to assume that he took action to make sure this was done. He might have shut down the taverns and brothels for instance. He may have enforced laws against idol worship. This is speculation on my part, but I think it very reasonable to assume.

Yet, they seem to be determined by God allowing/disallowing the conditions such that they made the choice that God wanted (a negative choice).
If God wanted them to repent, would He not have ensured that the conditions enabled them?
If not, "how could we blame them"? God didn't give them what they needed!

In the case of Saul, it does not make sense (to me) that God would decree that Saul would decide to go down to Keilah, and then forewarn David to overrule his own decree so that Saul would change his mind.

Does that make sense to you? Jesus said if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand. So, it does not make sense that God would overrule his own decrees.

I believe God did want Tyre and Sidon to repent, but that does not mean God had to perform miracles for them. Perhaps God felt he had given them sufficient grace to repent.

We see in scripture that God is merciful, but even God has his limits. If a man ignores this grace, at some point God has had enough.

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

Rev 2:20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.
21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

The scriptures say God is longsuffering, but even God has his limit. Yes, God could appear to a man as he did with Saul (Paul), but he is under no obligation to do so. I think Paul was an exception in order to truly show his grace. Paul was just about as sinful as a man could be in that he killed and imprisoned Christians, I believe as God showed his power through Pharaoh, he showed his grace and forgiveness through Paul. So, Paul was exceptional, as was Pharaoh. Pharaoh saw many miracles over many months and did not repent, God was exceptionally patient and longsuffering toward him.

But really, God is very longsuffering toward us all.

Amen! :thumb: It also refutes your view, too.

Well, I don't think you have refuted my view, just disagreed with it. Jesus knew what Tyre and Sidon WOULD have done, so God can foreknow the choices of men, yet they are not determined. If God can only foreknow what he determined, then Tyre and Sidon would have repented. They did not.

The fact is, Tyre and Sidon had the ability to repent, but did not.

 

[humblethinker]

Previously:

Originally Posted by Winman
I don't know anything about Molinism or Open Theism, I just know what the scriptures say and show.
[snip]
Again, I do not know or study these theories.

Do you not think you should do something about this? Do you know anything about Arminianism? It is within your ability to understand, surely. If you want to engage Arminians and Open Theists about their ideas then what advantage are you giving yourself by being content (my assumption) in your ignorance? (If you are not content, please forgive me). Do you think that you are NOT putting forward a type of philosophy in your statements? Do you think that you are NOT approaching the subject under the influence of a philosophy? The extent that one is unaware of their own bias is an indicator as to how influenced the one is by it. Are you saying that you want to understand more about these ideas? My take is that you are proud of your ignorance. I don't mean to accuse, so please indicate differently if that is not the case.

Humblethinker, I apologize to you. I had responded harshly to your post. A good Christian brother corrected me and pointed out how this is wrong behavior for a Christian. He is correct.

So, I apologize for my comments.

I did not see your original posted comments so no offence taken here. Based on your apology though I feel that I probably did not word my comments as well as I could have. I would do so now but am unable to edit them. I am concerned that I offended you.

Maybe I can put forth my reply to your comments with more tact and consideration. My 'default' view has been one that allows man to have some sort of libertarian free will while God still has certain foreknowledge of the outcome of man's excercise of that libertarian free will. I would have affirmed the idea that man was radically free but still could not do anything other than what God knew that man would do. But, I did not consider the implications this would necessarily have on the genuineness of God's appeal to men that he knew would not believe. Since recently considering this (after looking into the case of Open Theism), I then struggled with thinking how it could be the case that an appeal be considered genuine when the one appealing knows with certainty that such an appeal will never and can never effect the change he is desiring. When I did think of the answers my view could offer, the only arguements that seemed logical were the very arguements that Calvinists would offer in their defense. In my consideration of Open Theism, I found arguements that, to a large degree, satisfactorily addressed this conundrum I found myself in.

I believe that inevitably all people bring a philosophy into any conversation and that until they have a seachange this frames their understanding. To my earliest recollection, my default view has been one as explained by Arminianism (as it reflects the philosophy of man's free will). I believe I have made a good faith attempt to understand Calvinism. I am making a good faith attempt to understand Open Theism. I am not and have not been satisfied in the thought that the ideas I have when I enter into a conversation are necessarily correct. I am open to being wrong. I will consider plausible explanations even when ackowledgeing their correctness would necessarily mean that I was wrong.

The above has been about me and I don't intend -by comparison or contrast-to make any claims about you.

When I asked if you knew anything about Arminianism, it was a rhetorical question because in my mind the answer was an obvious 'Yes!', based on how well you've argued for the case of free will. My concern was that in your statement of not knowing about Molinism or Open Theism, that there was an implicit indictment of those that did know about those ideas... as though to them the Bible wasn't enough for them. Coming from that perspective I probably could have worded my objections with more consideration. While I am genuinely interested in your answer to, "Do you not think you should do something about this?" I recognize that I could have misunderstood your comments and/or could have been more thoughtful. I was perplexed as to how you consider it important to champion the ideas of free will (Arminianism) against calvinism but then consider unimportant the philosophy behind how that free will is actualized (ie. through either Molinism, Open Theism, et al), but, I recognize that I could have worded it differently.

 

[Winman]

Previously:

I did not see your original posted comments so no offence taken here. Based on your apology though I feel that I probably did not word my comments as well as I could have. I would do so now but am unable to edit them. I am concerned that I offended you.

Well, I was not kind in response, and a brother here on BB pointed that out to me. So, I deleted what I wrote. But it was insulting, so I owed you an apology.

Maybe I can put forth my reply to your comments with more tact and consideration. My 'default' view has been one that allows man to have some sort of libertarian free will while God still has certain foreknowledge of the outcome of man's excercise of that libertarian free will. I would have affirmed the idea that man was radically free but still could not do anything other than what God knew that man would do. But, I did not consider the implications this would necessarily have on the genuineness of God's appeal to men that he knew would not believe. Since recently considering this (after looking into the case of Open Theism), I then struggled with thinking how it could be the case that an appeal be considered genuine when the one appealing knows with certainty that such an appeal will never and can never effect the change he is desiring. When I did think of the answers my view could offer, the only arguements that seemed logical were the very arguements that Calvinists would offer in their defense. In my consideration of Open Theism, I found arguements that, to a large degree, satisfactorily addressed this conundrum I found myself in.

I have some gifts myself, but tact is not one of them. I am pretty blunt, and this has caused me problems in life.

My view is not complicated, I simply believe God knows in advance how a person will choose, but does not determine that choice. Judas is an example, God foretold in the OT that he would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, and that is exactly what he did. But God did not cause this, as the scriptures teach that God never tempts any man to sin. (Jam 1:13). This makes it very simple to me, God foreknew what Judas would do, but did not cause or determine it.

I believe that inevitably all people bring a philosophy into any conversation and that until they have a seachange this frames their understanding. To my earliest recollection, my default view has been one as explained by Arminianism (as it reflects the philosophy of man's free will). I believe I have made a good faith attempt to understand Calvinism. I am making a good faith attempt to understand Open Theism. I am not and have not been satisfied in the thought that the ideas I have when I enter into a conversation are necessarily correct. I am open to being wrong. I will consider plausible explanations even when ackowledgeing their correctness would necessarily mean that I was wrong.

The above has been about me and I don't intend -by comparison or contrast-to make any claims about you.

This is where you may not understand me. I do not feel a need to examine many different theories or philosophies. I have learned that there is no end to learning, and what often results is confusion.

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Ecc 2:15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.

Ecc 7:16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

If you consider yourself an intellectual, these verses may be offensive to you. But Solomon was the greatest intellectual of all men (besides the Lord) and he said there is much weariness and grief in much knowledge.

I learned a long time ago that the more different theories you study, the more confused a person becomes. One person will make an argument for a certain view, another will refute it and make another argument. It never ends.

I am a simple person, and I like simplicity.

When I asked if you knew anything about Arminianism, it was a rhetorical question because in my mind the answer was an obvious 'Yes!', based on how well you've argued for the case of free will. My concern was that in your statement of not knowing about Molinism or Open Theism, that there was an implicit indictment of those that did know about those ideas... as though to them the Bible wasn't enough for them. Coming from that perspective I probably could have worded my objections with more consideration. While I am genuinely interested in your answer to, "Do you not think you should do something about this?" I recognize that I could have misunderstood your comments and/or could have been more thoughtful. I was perplexed as to how you consider it important to champion the ideas of free will (Arminianism) against calvinism but then consider unimportant the philosophy behind how that free will is actualized (ie. through either Molinism, Open Theism, et al), but, I recognize that I could have worded it differently.

Again, I do not like to label myself, although I know quite a bit about Arminianism and Calvinism. I am much closer to Arminianism, although I do not believe a person can lose salvation, I believe in the Preservation of the Saints, which is much different than Perseverance.

I simply do not care to read hundreds of books and theories. It is weariness and confusion. I read the Bible. God spoke to us in simple language that anybody can understand with a little study. I like this. I feel the scriptures are all I need, I do not need fancy scholarship. It is not that I cannot handle it, I do not desire to handle it. I have never wanted to be an "intellectual", I would almost consider that an insult.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The scriptures themselves declare themselves to supply all that a man needs to be perfect (mature).

I read men at times, in fact I have been reading a good book lately that addresses free will and God's sovereignty in much detail. For the most part, I find myself in agreement with this author. Give it a look, I think you especially will appreciate it. Click on the Table of Contents to go directly to subjects that interest you, though the entire book is good.

http://www.xcalvinist.com/

This book was written by a former Calvinist and addresses all the issues and scripture we discuss here. It is an above average book, very good read.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Well, I was not kind in response, and a brother here on BB pointed that out to me. So, I deleted what I wrote. But it was insulting, so I owed you an apology.



I have some gifts myself, but tact is not one of them. I am pretty blunt, and this has caused me problems in life.

My view is not complicated, I simply believe God knows in advance how a person will choose, but does not determine that choice. Judas is an example, God foretold in the OT that he would betray Jesus for 30 pieces of silver, and that is exactly what he did. But God did not cause this, as the scriptures teach that God never tempts any man to sin. (Jam 1:13). This makes it very simple to me, God foreknew what Judas would do, but did not cause or determine it.



This is where you may not understand me. I do not feel a need to examine many different theories or philosophies. I have learned that there is no end to learning, and what often results is confusion.

Acts 26:24 And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

Ecc 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

Ecc 2:15 Then said I in my heart, As it happeneth to the fool, so it happeneth even to me; and why was I then more wise? Then I said in my heart, that this also is vanity.

Ecc 7:16 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself?

Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

If you consider yourself an intellectual, these verses may be offensive to you. But Solomon was the greatest intellectual of all men (besides the Lord) and he said there is much weariness and grief in much knowledge.

I learned a long time ago that the more different theories you study, the more confused a person becomes. One person will make an argument for a certain view, another will refute it and make another argument. It never ends.

I am a simple person, and I like simplicity.




Again, I do not like to label myself, although I know quite a bit about Arminianism and Calvinism. I am much closer to Arminianism, although I do not believe a person can lose salvation, I believe in the Preservation of the Saints, which is much different than Perseverance.

I simply do not care to read hundreds of books and theories. It is weariness and confusion. I read the Bible. God spoke to us in simple language that anybody can understand with a little study. I like this. I feel the scriptures are all I need, I do not need fancy scholarship. It is not that I cannot handle it, I do not desire to handle it. I have never wanted to be an "intellectual", I would almost consider that an insult.

2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The scriptures themselves declare themselves to supply all that a man needs to be perfect (mature).

I read men at times, in fact I have been reading a good book lately that addresses free will and God's sovereignty in much detail. For the most part, I find myself in agreement with this author. Give it a look, I think you especially will appreciate it. Click on the Table of Contents to go directly to subjects that interest you, though the entire book is good.

http://www.xcalvinist.com/

This book was written by a former Calvinist and addresses all the issues and scripture we discuss here. It is an above average book, very good read.

NNNOOOOOO!!!!!! There IS a molinist account which can possibly answer these questions without appealing to mystery (well, not quite as quickly anyway :laugh Please, consider it BEFORE you give up you've got this thing.

I have never wanted to be an "intellectual", I would almost consider that an insult

Please don't think this way, it is not insulting................On a side note winman, having read your posts for some time My assessment is this, your intelligence is FAR greater than your present knowledge justifies, you are TOO SMART to think like this. Some on this board should just hang it up be good little boys and girls and do as they are told some are too educated for their intelligence......(In three guesses you would know who specifically I speak of) You, could handle MUCH more intellectual and scholarly knowledge than you might presently have. It would do you good.:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Winman]

NNNOOOOOO!!!!!! There IS a molinist account which can possibly answer these questions without appealing to mystery (well, not quite as quickly anyway :laugh Please, consider it BEFORE you give up you've got this thing.

I don't know what you are talking about, there is no mystery to me. I believe God can supernaturally foresee who will believe, but he does not cause a person to believe or not. An example is Nathanael in John 1.

Jhn 1:44 Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.
45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.
51 And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man.

Here we have the account of Nathanael believeing on Jesus. We see that even before Nathanael came to Jesus that Jesus saw him "coming to him" (Jhn 6:37). This is foreknowledge. We see that Jesus addressed Nathanael as an "Israelite indeed" a true Jew, a child of faith. (Rom 9:7-8). We see that Nathanael is amazed and asks Jesus "whence KNOWEST thou ME". Again, this is foreknowledge, those whom he did foreknow he did predestine and call. (Rom 8:29-30). We see immediately that Nathanael believes and confesses that Jesus is the promised Son of God.

This all makes perfect sense to me, no mystery whatsoever. How God can foresee the future is a mystery, but so is the fact that God spoke the universe into existence. I believe God can do these things despite my inability to understand how.

Please don't think this way, it is not insulting................On a side note winman, having read your posts for some time My assessment is this, your intelligence is FAR greater than your present knowledge justifies, you are TOO SMART to think like this. Some on this board should just hang it up be good little boys and girls and do as they are told some are too educated for their intelligence......(In three guesses you would know who specifically I speak of) You, could handle MUCH more intellectual and scholarly knowledge than you might presently have. It would do you good.:thumbs::wavey:

Thanks for the compliment, but I am not all that smart, although I believe I am more practical and logical than some. I was always good at algebra! :tongue3:

I have been through this. I studied tons of books when I was young. As Solomon taught, it is a weariness of flesh. I don't have the time or energy. I like simplicity, I prefer to read the Bible and compare scripture to form my views. If someone can prove a theory from scripture, I am open to it, but it must conform to scripture, that is my authority.

 

[Van]

General Reconciliation

I do not advocate "universal atonement" but I do advocate "general reconciliation." The difference between general and universal is universal indicates the redemption or reconciliation is applied individually to everybody. I do not think this is what the bible teaches. But Jesus being the propitiation for the whole world, God reconciling the world to Himself, indicates a general reconciliation of everybody, Jesus paid the ransom for the many. But, if you continue reading in 2 Corinthians 5:18-21, you see that being reconciled does not indicate you have "received" the reconciliation individually, that is why we have the ministry of reconciliation. Therefore the difference is in who has "received" the reconciliation. And this occurs when God places us individually "in Christ." (1 Corinthians 1:30)

Here is a summary of Particular Reconciliation and General Reconciliation

Particular Reconciliation:
(1) God preselected folks for salvation before creation
(2) Christ came and died for those folks - limited atonement
(3) God gives those folks faith in Christ, then accepts their faith and places them in Christ.

General Reconciliation
(1) God selected Christ to redeem mankind before creation. Therefore those chosen and placed in Christ during their lifetime through belief in the truth were corporately chosen as the target group of His redemption plan before the foundation of the world.
(2) Christ came and died for mankind in general but not specifically for each individual.
(3) God chooses folks and places them in Christ after accepting their faith and reckoning it as righteousness.

The first point of difference centers on the meaning of Ephesians 1:4 which says we (born again believers) were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means being chosen as foreseen individuals. General Reconciliation maintains that being chosen in Him means Christ was chosen to be the Lamb of God before the foundation of the world and anyone subsequently redeemed by the Lamb was corporately chosen because you do not choose a Redeemer without a plan to redeem..

The second point of difference centers on the meaning of 1 John 2:2 which says He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world. Particular Reconciliation maintains that Jesus is the propitiation not only for elect Jews but also for elect Gentiles. General Reconciliation maintains that Christ is the propitiation not only for Jews or believers, but also for everybody else, the whole world. Propitiation means that God’s acceptance of Christ’s sacrifice provides the means of salvation, the mechanism of reconciliation. When God puts a believer spiritually in Christ they “receive” the reconciliation provided by Christ’s sacrifice.

The third point of difference centers on the meaning of Romans 4:5 which says but to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. Particular Reconciliation maintains the “his faith” was supernaturally given to him by God because the unregenerate are spiritually unable to trust in Christ. General Reconciliation maintains “his faith” is the individual’s trust in Christ, because if it were God’s gift of faith, it would not need to be reckoned as righteousness.

Therefore there is no conflict between limited open theism and General Reconcilation.

 

[Yeshua1]

God determining and bringing His elect to salvation though IS the basis of Hosd foreknowledge as regarding the saved, as He directly caused them to come to Christ!

 

[Van]

Reply to Yesusa1,

God determining and bringing His elect to salvation though IS the basis of Hosd foreknowledge as regarding the saved, as He directly caused them to come to Christ!

First I believe "Hosd" is a typo for God's foreknowledge.

Such generalized statements amount to a coded message.

"God determining and bringing His elect to salvation" is stated as being supported biblically but with no reference.

Does God determine His elect? Of course. When does God determine individually whom He will choose? Before He created any individuals to choose or after He credits their faith in Christ as righteousness? Closed theism says God chose individuals before creation based on Him knowing the future.

And since His knowledge is eternal, with no beginning, He never chose, just always knew. So Closed theism rewrites the meaning of choose to mean "revealed and declared to the finite what has always been." Therefore scripture means nothing, the words have no meaning, everything is settled like an eternal movie, always existent and just running its course, with every frame frozen. We are just going through our predestined motions. This view, Closed Theism is not biblical, it is a destructive heresy.

 

[Iconoclast]

General Reconciliation

I

Therefore there is no conflict between limited open theism and General Reconcilation.

of course not...because both are wrong:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Van]

Pitchback

of course not...because both are wrong:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Sandbox argumentation, whoever says it loudest and longest feels victorious. Calvinism, no matter how many adherents, remains false doctrine based on accepting scripture as written and not revised by Calvinism. Choose means choose, etc.

The humorous truth is that no Calvinist would oppose my views if they actually believed by their doctrine because nothing anyone does alters the foreordained outcome of our lives.

So every time you see a post by any Calvinist, smile because they do not believe their own doctrine.

Does God determine His elect? Of course. When does God determine individually whom He will choose? Before He created any individuals to choose or after He credits their faith in Christ as righteousness? Closed theism says God chose individuals before creation based on Him knowing the future.

And since His knowledge is eternal, with no beginning, He never chose, just always knew. So Closed theism rewrites the meaning of choose to mean "revealed and declared to the finite what has always been." Therefore scripture means nothing, the words have no meaning, everything is settled like an eternal movie, always existent and just running its course, with every frame frozen. We are just going through our predestined motions. This view, Closed Theism is not biblical, it is a destructive heresy.

 

[jbh28]

of course not...because both are wrong:thumbsup::thumbsup:

of course. Open theism is false teaching. There's no way biblically to say that there's anything that God doesn't know.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

of course. Open theism is false teaching. There's no way biblically to say that there's anything that God doesn't know.

That is your opinion, which you have a right to.

 

[Iconoclast]

Closed theism says God chose individuals before creation based on Him knowing the future.

wrong again....

11(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth
12It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.

13As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

14What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.

15For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

I never see the apostles say anything like what you try and put forth:thumbs:

 

[jbh28]

That is your opinion, which you have a right to.

Well thanks, but it's not my opinion. The Bible very clearly teaches that God knows everything.

 

[Van]

Pitchback

Did anyone ever see a Calvinist accurately represent an opponents view? Just asking. Note how limited open theism became Open Theism? Or how Calvinism's election for salvation became God's election of existing babies in the womb! General Reconciliation and limited open theism are biblical doctrines, well supported in scripture, whereas Calvinism and Closed Theism are unbiblical inventions of men.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

VAN:

If you believe the future is settled, everything is predestined, then crystal ball theology works, He knows who will come to Christ because He predestined it. If you believe God knows who will choose autonomously to trust in Christ, but that choice is not predestined, you have a logic problem. If only one outcome is possible, then you have redefined choice to mean "non-choice."

I am not quite understanding precisely what you mean with most of your posts is it something like exhaustive foreknowledge necessitating that there is no free will? Is that what you believe? Alternatively, do you believe that God cannot exhaustively know the future i.e. (foreknow who would believe) unless he had decreed it? I do not understand what your contention is. You seem to be suggesting that an Arminianistic view for instance, has the same logical result as Calvinism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did anyone ever see a Calvinist accurately represent an opponents view? Just asking.

It has been done, I have even seen it on this board. It is their own view they do not represent accurately :laugh: Which is why I absolutely adore hypers....they are logically consistent and unapologetic, they use words the same way everyone else does without re-defining them to suit their own purpose.

 

[Van]

Hi HeirofSalvation,

I am not quite understanding precisely what you mean with most of your posts is it something like exhaustive foreknowledge necessitating that there is no free will? Is that what you believe? Alternatively, do you believe that God cannot exhaustively know the future i.e. (foreknow who would believe) unless he had decreed it? I do not understand what your contention is. You seem to be suggesting that an Arminianistic view for instance, has the same logical result as Calvinism.

Yes, your understanding is close to what I believe. But lets back up to the first premise, God can know the future exhaustively. The Pagan belief is that the future exists "on the other side of time" and therefore God can know it because he created it. The veil of time just reveals what is foreordained (predestined and fixed). I do not think that view is biblical. God makes plans so He arranges the future as He pleases, it is not fixed exhaustively. When God proclaims a prophecy, He is not saying what He knows will happen by looking into His crystal ball, but rather He says what will happen and then He fulfills it, He makes what He declared happen.

Therefore, according to my understanding of the Bible, God knows the future only so far as He has predestined it. If He has predestined it exhaustively, then He would know it exhaustively. Many times you will see exhaustive foreknowledge folks misquote a verse, thus God knows the end from the beginning. However, what the verse actually says is God declares the end from the beginning. Two entirely different statements.

So according to this understanding of Biblical Truth, then exhaustive foreknowledge eliminates a purview where we can act autonomously. However, the Bible also teaches we act autonomously, we make plans but God directs our feet. So putting these two together, we have God allowing us to make autonomous choices within the purview He allows.
And He sometimes alters the range of our free will. Once Judas was chosen to be God's betrayer, Judas lost the ability to trust fully in Christ because his future had been declared and God was going to fulfill the betrayal prophecy through Judas.

But HOS, Calvinism and Arminianism do not have the "same" logical problem. Calvinism says everything is predestined making God the author of sin, as the Hypers honestly acknowledge. However the mainstream Calvinist use double speak to claim God predestines everything but is not the author of sin.

OTOH, Arminians say everything is not predestined, but God knows the future exhaustively. Here, since the only choice we can make is in accord with God's perfect foreknowledge our future choices are fixed in the perfection of His knowledge of the future. No other outcome is possible. Now the effort to avoid this logical consequence sometimes included time travel. Some say God knows it from the perspective that it has already happened. But then that puts a future into existence which God can travel to and look at from the end of time. Paganism 101 yet again.

Both views are unbiblical and illogical in my opinion for what that is worth. But Arminianism is much closer to a Biblical View than Calvinism, at least it accepts limited open theism, where we can act autonomously and alter the future, hastening the day our our Lord's return.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Thank you for your clarification: And now, I will proceed with my brow-beatings, insults, and charges of heresy inevitably coming to the conclusion that you are presumably not saved and need the gospel:laugh::wavey:

Just kidding but if I may:

Here, since the only choice we can make is in accord with God's perfect foreknowledge our future choices are fixed in the perfection of His knowledge of the future.

This is almost accurate, but I think the subtle difference is this: It is the only choice that we WILL make, not CAN. depending on how you view time: I would simply contend that the content of what God exhaustively foreknows is dictated by his choice to give LTF. (that is of course in those instances, such as salvation where he has chosen to do so). You seem to think that God is "looking forward into linear time" and truly "foreseeing" an event, but this is not how foreknowledge should be understood. I will try to keep it short so I will stop here. This video link I find instructive:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYoWhxOK8dE

I had an older post on this topic with humblethinker I link to here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1825241#post1825241

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well thanks, but it's not my opinion. The Bible very clearly teaches that God knows everything.

If you say so.

 

[jbh28]

If you say so.

No Michael, the Bible says so. What I say doesn't matter. What only matters is what the Bible says. There is nothing that God doesn't know. He is eternal(1 reason) and omniscient. (1 John 3:20)