I have interacted with those advocating Open theism, on their own discussion board, and basically they get hung up on god being sovereign and man not really having total free will, and that IF God fixes the future, everything predetermined and nothing really matters decision making wise!
-
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!
Open theism and the atonement
- Thread starter AresMan
- Start date
- Status
I have interacted with those advocating Open theism, on their own discussion board, and basically they get hung up on god being sovereign and man not really having total free will, and that IF God fixes the future, everything predetermined and nothing really matters decision making wise!
humblethinker
Active Member
There you go again saying the exact same thing in a different post... Open Theists believe that God is sovereign.
Hi Humblethinker, your post 62 is spot on. Christians seeking to rightly divide the Word of Truth seem to constantly address mis-characterizations. God is sovereign, i.e. He rules over creation. He either causes or allows all things to come to pass. What some do is redefine sovereign to me God predestines everything, and then when we disagree with that premise, they say we are hung up on God's sovereignty, like a rebellious child. Not helpful or accurate, a logical fallacy of disparaging the person to undercut his or her views.
And another thing, our will or ability to choose is limited to what God allows, so the issue is: Does God allow us to make plans autonomously or are our plans predestined by God? Scripture says God allows us to make decisions about life or death and He begs us to choose life. Therefore, the "everything is predestined doctrine" is unbiblical, no matter how it is disguised by clothing it as "sovereignty doctrine."
And another thing, our will or ability to choose is limited to what God allows, so the issue is: Does God allow us to make plans autonomously or are our plans predestined by God? Scripture says God allows us to make decisions about life or death and He begs us to choose life. Therefore, the "everything is predestined doctrine" is unbiblical, no matter how it is disguised by clothing it as "sovereignty doctrine."
Last edited by a moderator:
Standing Firm
The issue is not my fallibility, but my rejection of nonsense. There is no need to accept the mysterious premise that the future is known exhaustively, which is a pagan premise, not a biblical premise.
The issue is not what men can invent and claim to be true, it is what the Bible says is true, and the Bible teaches God makes His prophecies happen, He intervenes and alters what might have occurred such that what He declared would happen, happens. Thus He shapes or changes the future to conform to His prophecy.
The issue is rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and the Arminian view is not biblical, based on my study, however flawed it may be, of God's revelation of reality.
The issue is not my fallibility, but my rejection of nonsense. There is no need to accept the mysterious premise that the future is known exhaustively, which is a pagan premise, not a biblical premise.
The issue is not what men can invent and claim to be true, it is what the Bible says is true, and the Bible teaches God makes His prophecies happen, He intervenes and alters what might have occurred such that what He declared would happen, happens. Thus He shapes or changes the future to conform to His prophecy.
The issue is rightly dividing the Word of Truth, and the Arminian view is not biblical, based on my study, however flawed it may be, of God's revelation of reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
It's a "non-sense" legitimately thought to be worth serious consideration by many very intelligent-well-educated Christian philosophers and theologians.
I am not sure repeated insistence on calling it that does much to bolster the power of your argument. It may be a notion also believed by many pagans. Many ancient pagans also insisted on the sphericity of the Earth too.
O.k. this generalized statement is one which (whether they would phrase it that way) easily enough conforms to the point of view of Calvinist/determinist, Arminian, and OT alike.
Agreed, I am not an Arminian.....but the similarity is between the determinist and the Open Theist....The OT and the Determinist have more in common with each other than the Arm....because they both feel that the only way God can exhaustively know a future event is to determine/decree it. As you stated above.
Van or humblethinker, from the "limited open theism" model, can you explain a logical basis upon which finite creatures of God make their autonomous decisions. Do they act according to their greatest desire? Can they act contrary to their greatest desire, and if so, upon what basis is their actions?
Also, how is it that God Who created ex nihilo creates creatures who themselves create ex nihilo (their contra-causal choices)? Does God know His creatures (whom He created) better than they know themselves? If so, how can God be surprised by what they do if they are not surprised themselves?
According to 1 John 3:20 "God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things." If God "is greater than our hearts, and knows all things" how is it that the Holy Spirit can "try" to convict everyone's hearts given His omnipotence and omniscience and fail in His attempts? It would seem to me that in this case, neither God nor the finite creature has knowledge or control of the creature's mysterious will and all is up to randomness.
Also, how is it that God Who created ex nihilo creates creatures who themselves create ex nihilo (their contra-causal choices)? Does God know His creatures (whom He created) better than they know themselves? If so, how can God be surprised by what they do if they are not surprised themselves?
According to 1 John 3:20 "God is greater than our hearts, and knoweth all things." If God "is greater than our hearts, and knows all things" how is it that the Holy Spirit can "try" to convict everyone's hearts given His omnipotence and omniscience and fail in His attempts? It would seem to me that in this case, neither God nor the finite creature has knowledge or control of the creature's mysterious will and all is up to randomness.
How about either of them answering why the "fear' of just acknowledging that God is sovereign and that we don't have full free will?
Hi Aresman, you asked and I answered that question. We can choose what we desire at any point in time, but what we desire can change over time. Thus the claim that the Fall makes us always desire the ungodly is without logic. The Bible is full of fallen folks seeking God, i.e. Matthew 13.
God is omnipotent, He can create creatures who make autonomous choices, which is exactly what the bible says He did.
I addressed 1 John 3:20. As far as God desiring something but not causing it to occur using compulsion, the answer is simple. God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth in accordance with His purpose and plan. The plan includes our choosing life rather than death autonomously, thus we bring glory to God by our repentance.
God is omnipotent, He can create creatures who make autonomous choices, which is exactly what the bible says He did.
I addressed 1 John 3:20. As far as God desiring something but not causing it to occur using compulsion, the answer is simple. God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth in accordance with His purpose and plan. The plan includes our choosing life rather than death autonomously, thus we bring glory to God by our repentance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi HOS, just because a great number of folks, or many folks way smarter than me, have embraced the Pagan ideas of Plato and have claimed they are biblical, that does not make those ideas biblical. Such an argument is a logical fallacy.
I am not name calling, I have posted giving the specific development of the ideas claimed to be biblical.
My statement is not generalized, you seem to embrace Crystal Ball Theology where God looks at the future and declares what He knows will happen in the fixed settled future. My statement says God declares what He will bring about, and then causes that future circumstance or event to happen. Two totally different views. Crystal Ball Theology is pagan to the core.
What I stated above was that if God knows what will happen, and His knowledge of the future is certain, then only that future will occur. Therefore our thoughts and actions are predestined. But if His knowledge of the future includes possibilities, we might do this or we might do that, then His knowledge would not predestine our choices.
What limited open theism does not have in common with the other views is it is based on what the Bible says rather than the inventions of men.
I am not name calling, I have posted giving the specific development of the ideas claimed to be biblical.
My statement is not generalized, you seem to embrace Crystal Ball Theology where God looks at the future and declares what He knows will happen in the fixed settled future. My statement says God declares what He will bring about, and then causes that future circumstance or event to happen. Two totally different views. Crystal Ball Theology is pagan to the core.
What I stated above was that if God knows what will happen, and His knowledge of the future is certain, then only that future will occur. Therefore our thoughts and actions are predestined. But if His knowledge of the future includes possibilities, we might do this or we might do that, then His knowledge would not predestine our choices.
What limited open theism does not have in common with the other views is it is based on what the Bible says rather than the inventions of men.
Upon what basis do we "choose what we desire"? Are not our very choices based on or desires? This seems like circular reasoning to me.
What causes them to "change over time"? Obviously things like more information appropriated (which is most often NOT voluntary). Or a change of the heart from God (Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-27; Jeremiah 32:38-41; Proverbs 21:1; 1 Samuel 10:6,9), while we know that people act according to their heart (Luke 6:5; Matthew 11:15-20; Mark 7:18-23).
Hmm, have you looked at verses 10-15 of that chapter?
Also, Total Inability does not mean that everyone is as evil as he can be, but that they are slaves to sin, break God's law, and do not embrace the true God for Who He is.
Romans 3:11 says that there is "none that seek after God." How do we reconcile this with your scenario from Matthew 13 of a multitude of people seeking Jesus? Well, the chapter proves that they did not seek Him for Who He is, but rather, like those of John 6, wanted Him to feed their flesh. Many can seek after a god of their own liking that satisfies their unregenerate nature, but it takes the drawing of the Father for people to seek after the true God for Who He is.
They make ontologically distinct choices; that does not mean that they make choices that are autonomous from God (in His eternal decree and foreknowledge).
You need to prove that the logic of God creating ex nihilo creatures that also create ex nihilo (contra-causal information) is not similar to interrogative fallacies like "Can God create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?" To do this, you need to explain how libertarian free will can be true by explaining how people make "contra-causal" choices when choices are done for causal reasons.
I am not sure if you understood my question regarding 1 John 3:20. If God is "greater than our hearts" and "knows all things" (regarding our hearts), then how is it that the almighty Spirit of God tries to convict hearts that He is greater than, and fails to do so? Either God is NOT "greater than our hearts," and does NOT "know all things" about them, OR people do things that directly contradict their own hearts (Upon what basis?! It makes NO SENSE). Such an idea would not be reconcilable with Jesus' statement that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" and that people do things outwardly according to what is in them.
If this charge is entirely correct, such that correlation proves causation, then open theists have embraced the "pagan" ideas of Aristotle.
Thus, we agree that the Arminian position is inherently inconsistent "wishful thinking." The only realistic solution, I propose, is that all things are done with purpose, and that the ultimate purpose lies mysteriously in the eternal decree of God. To argue otherwise is to argue the transcendence of concepts or "forces" above God to which He and His creation are necessarily subject, yet they are defined by their subjects, as well (a catch-22). There is nothing the transcends God or can define Him outside Himself. It's impossible.
And I have no problem with understanding this from a compatibilistic viewpoint and understanding that we as creatures are 100% morally accountable for what we do. The contrary is impossible.
And I REALLY would like you to explain how "contra-causal" choices work.
It would seem to me that your "limited open theism" is essentially an argument from silence: for anything that Scripture does not explicitly declare is "foreknown" or "predestined" must be free in the libertarian sense (that is never satisfactorily defined or explained, only asserted by question begging).
hi Aresman, I have addressed all these carnards before. Why repeat the fallacies? Limited open theism simply accepts what the Bible teaches, and is not based on pagan philosophy.
The Calvinist view is every bit as wishful, saying God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. The mysterious decrees cloud cover simply hides the adsurdity of the theology.
Compatibilism is a silly argument. We do what we desire at the time, but our desires can change, like a person acting against self interest to protect others. As I have said many times before, your argument breaks down when it claims we cannot desire to seek God and trust in Christ, because the Bible is full of examples of such behavior. At its core, it is just more cloud cover to hide the fallacy of total spiritual inability.
No, your views are built on silence, mine on the explicit teachings of scripture contextually considered.
The Calvinist view is every bit as wishful, saying God predestines everything but is not the author of sin. The mysterious decrees cloud cover simply hides the adsurdity of the theology.
Compatibilism is a silly argument. We do what we desire at the time, but our desires can change, like a person acting against self interest to protect others. As I have said many times before, your argument breaks down when it claims we cannot desire to seek God and trust in Christ, because the Bible is full of examples of such behavior. At its core, it is just more cloud cover to hide the fallacy of total spiritual inability.
No, your views are built on silence, mine on the explicit teachings of scripture contextually considered.
I wouldn’t call “open theism” a “free will” gospel because the differences are more towards, in my understanding, concerning God rather than man (and I wouldn’t want to associate it with a denomination). While it does highlight the free will of man in salvation, this is not what forms its distinctiveness.
Hi Aresman, we do not have fixed desires, always ungodly. We can change our desire on a whim, on an impulse such as rage or love, or based on some valid or flawed calculation.
I have looked everywhere to find any support for Calvinism and could find none for the TULI, but all was not lost because I did find support for the P.
If a pull string doll says "I love you" (just follows its predestined actions" the person receiving the admiration is not glorified. The Calvinist view of exhaustive determinism is simply pagan.
There is not need to prove anything, words have meanings and scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death. You redefine choice to be non-choice. My proof is scripture, your assertion rests on redefining the meaning of the words of scripture such as choice really means non-choice.
I have explained 1 John 3:20 now twice. Contextually considered it supports my view and provides absolutely no support for pagan beliefs.
I have looked everywhere to find any support for Calvinism and could find none for the TULI, but all was not lost because I did find support for the P.
If a pull string doll says "I love you" (just follows its predestined actions" the person receiving the admiration is not glorified. The Calvinist view of exhaustive determinism is simply pagan.
There is not need to prove anything, words have meanings and scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death. You redefine choice to be non-choice. My proof is scripture, your assertion rests on redefining the meaning of the words of scripture such as choice really means non-choice.
I have explained 1 John 3:20 now twice. Contextually considered it supports my view and provides absolutely no support for pagan beliefs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hmm. I believe I have demonstrated in a few other posts that one view is not "based on" a "pagan philosophy" versus the other, but rather than both views have philosophy that correlates to that found in opposing philosophies of past (Greek) debates. I would appreciate if you would drop the high-handed charge of "pagan philosophy" to doctrine taught throughout most of church history (the exhaustive foreknowledge of God).
The open view and the Arminian view both have the quandary of trying to defend the idea of transcendent concepts of morality and responsibility to which both God and His creatures are essentially subject. Arminianism has the quandary of asserting that part of God's eternal being--his perfect foreknowledge of all things--is mutually dependent on the very creatures He created. The open view has the quandary of explaining the nature of the eternal God being subject to the spacetime that He created (or that spacetime is also transcendently eternal) and that finite creatures of God--who were created by prior causes ultimately stemming from God's decree to create ex nihilo--themselves, genuinely create their decisions ex nihilo. I have yet to see a philosophical or Scriptural explanation of libertarian free will that is not merely asserted question-begging, and that does not result in a catch-22.
So, our actions are determined by our desires? I agree!
So, what determines our desires? If you have to defend libertarian free will by saying that "we" determine them "contra-causally," then you contradict your statement above. You would be saying that we can "choose" (by actions) our desires, that then determine our actions. Circular reasoning. To avoid this, you have to assert baselessly that we can (sometimes?) create our desires from nothing. This is absurd, because it directly discards the Why of anything.
What causes them to change? There would have to be a REASON, right? Otherwise, our choices would be random fluctuations and not purposeful.
Doing so is still acting according to one's greatest desire in the given set of circumstances. The desire to do this can be greater than that of self interest due to the desire not to lose future fellowship with another, the guilt of being culpable for the death of another, the praise of being a hero, or some other reason. The difference between how one person would act versus another depends on nature and information obtained. Who has control of the nature and actions of people according to the Scriptures?
Pro 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.
Pro 21:2 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts.
Pro 16:9 A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.
Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.
Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
I would think that the best way to interpret the Scriptures is to let the doctrinal absolute statements about the nature of God tell us how to understand the metaphysics behind the narrative passages, rather than taking an unprovable and undefinable assumption of libertarian free will into the narrative passages, and then interpreting the doctrinal statements accordingly.
Your views are based on taking anthropomorphic revelations of God from narrative passages and using this to interpret God's doctrinal statements about Himself through the lens of finite man's experience. My views are based on taking God's doctrinal statements about Himself and viewing the narrative passages of how He relates to His creation in this light--as essentially anthropomorphic to a degree.
You cannot define the core, eternal nature of the Creator through the creation; you can only get ideas in limited measure about the personality and mind of God through how He has revealed it in His creation.
The Calvinistic and Arminian view has the similar quandary – that of founding their soteriology on one biblical aspect while acknowledging but not engaging another. The open view is better situated to reconcile morality and responsibility with God and man as its subject – although perhaps not within a legitimately biblical context.
Last edited by a moderator:
I love it when a Calvinist claims my view is through the finite mind of man but their view expresses the divine view. Pure absurdity.
Lets number the false assertions:
1. Aresman claims to have shown the biblical rather than pagan source for exhaustive determinism. Pure twaddle. I have shown, in another thread, the pagan roots of Crystal Ball Theology.
2. Aresman claims my view is that correlation proves causation. Total fiction. Why is it that all Calvinist simply misrepresent the views of others rather than defend their own?
3. Aresman claims my view rests on putting God under a transcendent morality. Total fiction once again. The Bible says God keeps His word, therefore we can accept what He says, and not nullify it by claiming He did not mean what He said.
4. Aresman claims my view makes God subject to space and time. Pure fiction, but God can choose to relate to us in time, just as the Bible says. He says if you do this, then I will do that. This does not make God subject to time, only that God interacts with us in time because He has chosen to do so. So yet another misrepresentation.
5. God allows us to make autonomous choices where our choice is not dictated by God's predestination directly or indirectly. This what the Bible actually says. Calvinism claims choice does not mean choice rewriting scripture to fit the inventions of men.
6. The issue is not what causes men to change and do other than what they have done in the past. They can be moved by the Holy Spirit, by self interest, by emotion, and by folly. All these are biblically based reasons for change of desires, i.e. the coming to our senses as taught by Jesus.
7. Aresman then makes yet another non-germane argument, we always act according to our greatest desire AT the Time, and then claims our greatest desire cannot change over time. Pure twaddle.
8. God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth according to His purpose and plan. Therefore He creates a purview where we can choose life or death, and He begs us to choose life. Aresman redefines choice to mean non-choice.
9. Next, Aresman says we should invent the attributes of God and then interprete scripture according to the invented attributes. Totally wrong. We should accept what scripture actually says and conform our understanding of God to His revelation, not the other way around.
10. And lastly we have Aresman claiming we should nullify the places where God's behavior does not fit our man-made doctrine, but then stand firm on the passages where His behavior supports our view of God. To clever by half.
Lets number the false assertions:
1. Aresman claims to have shown the biblical rather than pagan source for exhaustive determinism. Pure twaddle. I have shown, in another thread, the pagan roots of Crystal Ball Theology.
2. Aresman claims my view is that correlation proves causation. Total fiction. Why is it that all Calvinist simply misrepresent the views of others rather than defend their own?
3. Aresman claims my view rests on putting God under a transcendent morality. Total fiction once again. The Bible says God keeps His word, therefore we can accept what He says, and not nullify it by claiming He did not mean what He said.
4. Aresman claims my view makes God subject to space and time. Pure fiction, but God can choose to relate to us in time, just as the Bible says. He says if you do this, then I will do that. This does not make God subject to time, only that God interacts with us in time because He has chosen to do so. So yet another misrepresentation.
5. God allows us to make autonomous choices where our choice is not dictated by God's predestination directly or indirectly. This what the Bible actually says. Calvinism claims choice does not mean choice rewriting scripture to fit the inventions of men.
6. The issue is not what causes men to change and do other than what they have done in the past. They can be moved by the Holy Spirit, by self interest, by emotion, and by folly. All these are biblically based reasons for change of desires, i.e. the coming to our senses as taught by Jesus.
7. Aresman then makes yet another non-germane argument, we always act according to our greatest desire AT the Time, and then claims our greatest desire cannot change over time. Pure twaddle.
8. God desires all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth according to His purpose and plan. Therefore He creates a purview where we can choose life or death, and He begs us to choose life. Aresman redefines choice to mean non-choice.
9. Next, Aresman says we should invent the attributes of God and then interprete scripture according to the invented attributes. Totally wrong. We should accept what scripture actually says and conform our understanding of God to His revelation, not the other way around.
10. And lastly we have Aresman claiming we should nullify the places where God's behavior does not fit our man-made doctrine, but then stand firm on the passages where His behavior supports our view of God. To clever by half.
Van:
I was not making an argument from authority.... I only would be if I were bolstering my argument with it, which would be fallacious....I was commenting on your dismissing their ideas out of hand as "nonsense"
see:
Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
Mumbo Jumbo??? I don't understand. Are you dismissing the notion out of hand? Maybe if I merely made it as a bald assertion.....but WLC? It may be correct, it might very well be wrong, but to dismiss it out of hand? I do realize that it is counterintuitive, but there is a body of material on the topic if you would like to discuss it. Maybe that was not your intention, but I decidedly think you should at least vet the idea first no?
I even...quite graciously....gave you a second chance to lie in order to save face and pretend that it was not your intention after all...
This...however....is a logical fallacy (genetic)
I do not view God's relationship to time this way: So you are more than welcome to beat that idea to death, if I did view time this way... I would be more likely to be an Open Theist..
An OT assumption.....I do not see the future as "fixed" in this way...I simply see the capacity of a timeless being to know it.
which is pretty much what the Calvinist and the Open Theist have in common...a sentiment I do not share.
That is the part I actually AM disagreeing with you about....I don't believe that God's foreknowledge of an event renders them necessary....you seem to think so....I don't think you have any idea what I believe, or what I have been trying to convey to you so far....I am a Molinist....Thus I do not share the same sentiments either an Arminian, Calvinist or OT (generally) have about the nature of foreknowledge....(Aresman) actually knows what one is, and could explain it quite well to you. As he also explains in rather succinct detail Greek philosophy and how it actually does or does not relate to the conversation at hand. One might consider themselves in one of those camps and be a Molinist.... i.e. Alvin Plantinga...(I think)
This is the Straw man part:
This is the genetic fallacy part:
You successfully committed two logical fallacies back to back in exactly eight words.:applause:
It may help you, to actually take a look at some of the links I have posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX3uu...feature=relmfu
<----There are two parts
Seriously???..... This sounds like the way a lot of Calvinists talk,
although I decidedly appreciate someone turning those tables around on them every now and again....it sounds equally as stupid if an ARM, CAL, OT...or anybody else says it. Everyone here believes their view is Biblical....sheesh
I was not making an argument from authority.... I only would be if I were bolstering my argument with it, which would be fallacious....I was commenting on your dismissing their ideas out of hand as "nonsense"
see:
Originally Posted by HeirofSalvation
Mumbo Jumbo??? I don't understand. Are you dismissing the notion out of hand? Maybe if I merely made it as a bald assertion.....but WLC? It may be correct, it might very well be wrong, but to dismiss it out of hand? I do realize that it is counterintuitive, but there is a body of material on the topic if you would like to discuss it. Maybe that was not your intention, but I decidedly think you should at least vet the idea first no?
I even...quite graciously....gave you a second chance to lie in order to save face and pretend that it was not your intention after all...
This...however....is a logical fallacy (genetic)
I do not view God's relationship to time this way: So you are more than welcome to beat that idea to death, if I did view time this way... I would be more likely to be an Open Theist..
An OT assumption.....I do not see the future as "fixed" in this way...I simply see the capacity of a timeless being to know it.
which is pretty much what the Calvinist and the Open Theist have in common...a sentiment I do not share.
That is the part I actually AM disagreeing with you about....I don't believe that God's foreknowledge of an event renders them necessary....you seem to think so....I don't think you have any idea what I believe, or what I have been trying to convey to you so far....I am a Molinist....Thus I do not share the same sentiments either an Arminian, Calvinist or OT (generally) have about the nature of foreknowledge....(Aresman) actually knows what one is, and could explain it quite well to you. As he also explains in rather succinct detail Greek philosophy and how it actually does or does not relate to the conversation at hand. One might consider themselves in one of those camps and be a Molinist.... i.e. Alvin Plantinga...(I think)
This is the Straw man part:
This is the genetic fallacy part:
You successfully committed two logical fallacies back to back in exactly eight words.:applause:
It may help you, to actually take a look at some of the links I have posted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX3uu...feature=relmfu
<----There are two parts
.
Seriously???..... This sounds like the way a lot of Calvinists talk,
although I decidedly appreciate someone turning those tables around on them every now and again....it sounds equally as stupid if an ARM, CAL, OT...or anybody else says it. Everyone here believes their view is Biblical....sheesh
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi HOS, you too are long on charges and short on truth. The idea is not that you believe your view is biblical, the idea is I can cite the passages which (1) make my case, and (2) refute the various views of others.
You charged me with dismissing your view out of hand, but I rebutted the specific view which I dismissed, and provided the reason. Thus a false charge.
God does look into the hearts of existent folks and therefore knows what that person would do given a circumstance. And God does bring about circumstances to fulfill His prophecies. But this is not the whole story, for God hardens hearts and therefore alters what a person would do given a circumstance to fit His purpose and plan.
For example your view, at least what is published as presenting your view, claims God causes exhaustively the circumstances He desires, whereas scripture says things happen by chance. And then we have Abraham and Isaac, where God did not have "middle knowledge" of what Abraham would choose to do. Your view is nonsense and conflicts with scripture just as Calvinism, and Arminianism do.
Lets say I hear the gospel and am considering going all in for Jesus. Now God's plan for the future has me going to hell. Therefore He arranges circumstances whereby I freely choose to reject Jesus. Therefore He actually decided my choice, making it a non-choice, similar to putting me in a room with one door and then punishing me for going through that door. Utter nonsense.
You charged me with dismissing your view out of hand, but I rebutted the specific view which I dismissed, and provided the reason. Thus a false charge.
God does look into the hearts of existent folks and therefore knows what that person would do given a circumstance. And God does bring about circumstances to fulfill His prophecies. But this is not the whole story, for God hardens hearts and therefore alters what a person would do given a circumstance to fit His purpose and plan.
For example your view, at least what is published as presenting your view, claims God causes exhaustively the circumstances He desires, whereas scripture says things happen by chance. And then we have Abraham and Isaac, where God did not have "middle knowledge" of what Abraham would choose to do. Your view is nonsense and conflicts with scripture just as Calvinism, and Arminianism do.
Lets say I hear the gospel and am considering going all in for Jesus. Now God's plan for the future has me going to hell. Therefore He arranges circumstances whereby I freely choose to reject Jesus. Therefore He actually decided my choice, making it a non-choice, similar to putting me in a room with one door and then punishing me for going through that door. Utter nonsense.
Last edited by a moderator:
Van, you really do make some good points sometimes, but then you write stuff like the following that makes it nearly impossible for anyone to take you seriously:
-If this statement is true, it is only true in-so-much as it applies to ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, because we all have difficulty putting other peoples views in our own words.
But it isn't any more true of Calvinists than anybody else. You are making the judgement that anyone who accepts the Calvinistic view of some difficult texts of scripture is automatically more deceptive and dishonest than those who accept a different interpretation.
-You would be crying 'FOUL' if anyone made the statement that "All who accept any part of open theism are people who misrepresent others."
Well, obviously if Aresman says this, then you are totally right. The problem is, He didn't.
-Even if you convinced that Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture, That is totally different than Aresman saying we should simply invent some attributes apart from scripture and believe those. He has not said this. He has said the opposite, that He believes his view IS consistent with scripture, and the ONLY way he can be faithful to scripture is to believe the way he does.
-If this statement is true, it is only true in-so-much as it applies to ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE, because we all have difficulty putting other peoples views in our own words.
But it isn't any more true of Calvinists than anybody else. You are making the judgement that anyone who accepts the Calvinistic view of some difficult texts of scripture is automatically more deceptive and dishonest than those who accept a different interpretation.
-You would be crying 'FOUL' if anyone made the statement that "All who accept any part of open theism are people who misrepresent others."
Well, obviously if Aresman says this, then you are totally right. The problem is, He didn't.
-Even if you convinced that Calvinism is inconsistent with scripture, That is totally different than Aresman saying we should simply invent some attributes apart from scripture and believe those. He has not said this. He has said the opposite, that He believes his view IS consistent with scripture, and the ONLY way he can be faithful to scripture is to believe the way he does.
- Status