Bravo my Armenian Calvinistic Brother....well said:thumbsup:
-
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!
The Closed Theism of Calvinism
- Thread starter Van
- Start date
- Status
Bravo my Armenian Calvinistic Brother....well said:thumbsup:
I would hope they are all both of our friends...but if not, that says something about you. Luke and Aaron have no problem stating God desires, ordains and is the ultimate cause of sin...numerous times on numerous threads. I'm sure at some point by accident you would have come across this.
I would disavow any statements that God is the originator of sin. It is obvious in some sense that God is willing for sin to occur, otherwise he would have prevented it from occurring. This does not mean that he actively originated the sin, only that he saw it fit to allow his creatures to sin at times. This applies to all branches of Christian thought. Even if Arminian soteriology is true, God still obviously had to permit sin in the first place.
Believing that God is the author of sin is outside the historic bounds of Reformed tradition and is unbiblical.
Agreed completely.
Wd,
I would like to believe we are brothers in Christ.....however,like our hindu friend last week, things are not what they appear.
If someone wants help, I will try....if someone is openly hostile to God and His people....i will try to help,until there are blasphmous remarks, at that point....I will not cast pearls before swine....
We cannot know someones heart, but we can see their posts...and going on the attack of brothers and sisters does not give evidence for being a sheep.
If you remember a few weeks ago, I tried to dialog with preacher 4 truth. We dis agreed, then tried to work things out , and a week later he was accusing me of being a judiazer because I believe in the 10 commandments???
This does not seem to me to be the love of the brethren:laugh:
My disdain for Vans posts....are because I see them as an attack, not as the back and forth debate/ discussion/ which gets heated at times,which we all at some point sin ...in how we respond[myself included].
I have tried to first discuss, then appeal to van, to reconsider his posts, but he is oblivious to any such suggestions, even from many persons who show more grace and patience than I have with him, try to offer him help.
:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Reply to Skandelon,
If you take it as a no, you misunderstand me. All things are possible with God, so to say "no" would be unbiblical. What I say is God's word reveals that He has chosen not to know some things about the future. Now according to my logic, and not based on God's word, God would choose not to know our future decisions because that would eliminate our ability to alter our future. But even if that logic, as presented by Boettner, is flawed, I find no verse that says God has chosen to know our decisions before we are alive. Now of course He could predestine we will be born, and then predestine our choices, such that whatever He purposes to accomplish, He accomplishes. But that is not the issue. It is supporting what I believe is pure speculation from scripture, such as God knows the future exhaustively, when verse after verse denies this fiction.
And as I pointed out, God does know what we would do in a given situation, such as if the miracles performed here had been preformed there, they would have repented. Or Jesus telling Peter how he would die.
If you take it as a no, you misunderstand me. All things are possible with God, so to say "no" would be unbiblical. What I say is God's word reveals that He has chosen not to know some things about the future. Now according to my logic, and not based on God's word, God would choose not to know our future decisions because that would eliminate our ability to alter our future. But even if that logic, as presented by Boettner, is flawed, I find no verse that says God has chosen to know our decisions before we are alive. Now of course He could predestine we will be born, and then predestine our choices, such that whatever He purposes to accomplish, He accomplishes. But that is not the issue. It is supporting what I believe is pure speculation from scripture, such as God knows the future exhaustively, when verse after verse denies this fiction.
And as I pointed out, God does know what we would do in a given situation, such as if the miracles performed here had been preformed there, they would have repented. Or Jesus telling Peter how he would die.
Last edited by a moderator:
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
Thats why I asked. Good to know.
1. Why do you presume that God's foreknowing of your future decisions would "eliminate our ability to alter our future." Our future is determined by our decisions, not God's foreknowledge of them. You are making the same mistake as the Determinists by presuming (based on finite logic) that divine foreknowledge equates with divine predetermination.
2. As you admitted, this is not a biblical concept, so there is a level of mystery, right. So, why not just say, God knows all things but we still have freedom to make contra-causual choices and leave the rest to mystery?
Right, and did his foreknowing and even foretelling of Peter's lie make Him the predeterminer of it? Of course not. Peter did it of his own volition.
glfredrick
New Member
Nice try Van... Had to invent a theology and everything.
Let's face it, you ARE an open theist and you argue for that position constantly -- while also, and at the same time -- arguing that you are not an open theist. Weird, huh?
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthread.php?50471-If-There-Is-Open-Theism-Is-There-Closed-Theism
Reply to StefanM
The history of the Reformation is that some who went beyond what others thought was biblical, were branded as heretics and burned at the stake. Your charge could have been made against Luther, Calvin, you name it.
You dismissed my views with generalities, saying they are unorthodox, but did not support you charge with specifics that I could address.
Closed Theism is a heresy, and that happens to be the orthodox view. So to the extent Calvinists deny that men make choices autonomously that affect the outcome of their lives, Calvinism embraces Closed Theism.
Bottom line, Open Theism and Closed Theism are two extremes and both are false doctrines, which ignore verse after verse.
The history of the Reformation is that some who went beyond what others thought was biblical, were branded as heretics and burned at the stake. Your charge could have been made against Luther, Calvin, you name it.
You dismissed my views with generalities, saying they are unorthodox, but did not support you charge with specifics that I could address.
Closed Theism is a heresy, and that happens to be the orthodox view. So to the extent Calvinists deny that men make choices autonomously that affect the outcome of their lives, Calvinism embraces Closed Theism.
Bottom line, Open Theism and Closed Theism are two extremes and both are false doctrines, which ignore verse after verse.
Tom Butler
New Member
Tom, the drive-by poster, pulling up to the curb for a moment.
Maybe someone can explain how an omniscient God can choose not to know something.
And how does he pick and choose what he doesn't want to know?
I mean this as humor, but what if something occurs to God that he didn't want to know? Can he simply un-know it by saying Erase, Erase! Or, it is simply an Oops moment where God says, Oops, didn't mean to know that.
And, is it possible that I can mess with God by doing something different from what he foreknew I would do?
I suppose we can redefine omniscient as God saying, I know everything, but I don't know that.
And if God doesn't know something, then knows something, isn't that a change. So Immutability must be re-defined, as well.
I'm doing this in a somewhat light-hearted way, but there are some legitimate questions in there.
Pulling away from the curb, now.
Maybe someone can explain how an omniscient God can choose not to know something.
And how does he pick and choose what he doesn't want to know?
I mean this as humor, but what if something occurs to God that he didn't want to know? Can he simply un-know it by saying Erase, Erase! Or, it is simply an Oops moment where God says, Oops, didn't mean to know that.
And, is it possible that I can mess with God by doing something different from what he foreknew I would do?
I suppose we can redefine omniscient as God saying, I know everything, but I don't know that.
And if God doesn't know something, then knows something, isn't that a change. So Immutability must be re-defined, as well.
I'm doing this in a somewhat light-hearted way, but there are some legitimate questions in there.
Pulling away from the curb, now.
Tom, God forgives our sins and remembers them no more forever. So God can choose not to know something. Black letter Bible.
If it suits His purpose not to know something, He does not know it. For example, when God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac, He said, "Now I know" indicating that before Abraham had drawn his knife to kill his son, God had chosen not to search Abraham's heart for this piece of information.
No, it is not possible to do something different from what God foreknew you would do. No plan of God can be thwarted, so what He foreknows, He has predestined, and what He predestines He foreknows.
Yes, my view changes the orthodox definition of omniscience, from God knows everything imagainable includeing the future exhaustively, to God knows everything He has chosen to know. Using this definition the doctrine is biblical, using the older one, the doctrine is unbiblical.
No, this change in the defintion of omniscience to agree with the Bible, does not require an change in the characteristic of God being immutable. But again, we must have a common understanding of that doctrine to be sure it has not been altered.
Here is a definition off the internet:
The perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change in essence, attributes, consciousness, will, and promises. No change is possible in God, because all change must be to better or worse, and God is absolute perfection. No cause for change in God exists, either in Himself or outside of Him.
But this does not preclude God changing His mind, and giving mercy rather than justice or giving justice rather than mercy. He can say, if you do this, I will do that, but if you do something else, I will not do that, but will do something else.
If it suits His purpose not to know something, He does not know it. For example, when God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac, He said, "Now I know" indicating that before Abraham had drawn his knife to kill his son, God had chosen not to search Abraham's heart for this piece of information.
No, it is not possible to do something different from what God foreknew you would do. No plan of God can be thwarted, so what He foreknows, He has predestined, and what He predestines He foreknows.
Yes, my view changes the orthodox definition of omniscience, from God knows everything imagainable includeing the future exhaustively, to God knows everything He has chosen to know. Using this definition the doctrine is biblical, using the older one, the doctrine is unbiblical.
No, this change in the defintion of omniscience to agree with the Bible, does not require an change in the characteristic of God being immutable. But again, we must have a common understanding of that doctrine to be sure it has not been altered.
Here is a definition off the internet:
The perfection of God by which He is devoid of all change in essence, attributes, consciousness, will, and promises. No change is possible in God, because all change must be to better or worse, and God is absolute perfection. No cause for change in God exists, either in Himself or outside of Him.
But this does not preclude God changing His mind, and giving mercy rather than justice or giving justice rather than mercy. He can say, if you do this, I will do that, but if you do something else, I will not do that, but will do something else.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. The flaws of your position have been pointed out over and over in this thread.
You admit that your position is unorthodox. There is nothing left to say. You claim that those of us who hold to a biblical view of God believe in heresy while you spout your unbiblical, false doctrine.
You deny Open Theism all the while you promote it.
No, I can prove Calvinism makes that assertion by quoting Boettner. His argument makes sense to me, but as I have said, since the bible says anything is possible with God, I cannot disprove God could foreknow and yet not predestine.
If we engage is the speculation of men, for example, time travel, then God could know what we chose "in time" because He is "outside of time." But none of this can be supported scripturally.
As I said at the on-set, I believe in what the Bible says, and not in what it does not rule out. Arminianism is based on lots of scriptural truth, well founded but it has, in my opinion three problems. The bible clearly says God chose us individually during our lifetime, not before creation, because we were rich in faith and loved God. James 2:5. He chose us by spiritually placing us in Christ, thus making us members of the corporately elected group of His redemption plan, the body of Christ, the church, the called out.
If we engage is the speculation of men, for example, time travel, then God could know what we chose "in time" because He is "outside of time." But none of this can be supported scripturally.
As I said at the on-set, I believe in what the Bible says, and not in what it does not rule out. Arminianism is based on lots of scriptural truth, well founded but it has, in my opinion three problems. The bible clearly says God chose us individually during our lifetime, not before creation, because we were rich in faith and loved God. James 2:5. He chose us by spiritually placing us in Christ, thus making us members of the corporately elected group of His redemption plan, the body of Christ, the church, the called out.
The history of the Reformation is that some who went beyond what others thought was biblical, were branded as heretics and burned at the stake. Your charge could have been made against Luther, Calvin, you name it.
You dismissed my views with generalities, saying they are unorthodox, but did not support you charge with specifics that I could address.
Closed Theism is a heresy, and that happens to be the orthodox view. So to the extent Calvinists deny that men make choices autonomously that affect the outcome of their lives, Calvinism embraces Closed Theism.
Bottom line, Open Theism and Closed Theism are two extremes and both are false doctrines, which ignore verse after verse.
You dismissed my views with generalities, saying they are unorthodox, but did not support you charge with specifics that I could address.
Closed Theism is a heresy, and that happens to be the orthodox view. So to the extent Calvinists deny that men make choices autonomously that affect the outcome of their lives, Calvinism embraces Closed Theism.
Bottom line, Open Theism and Closed Theism are two extremes and both are false doctrines, which ignore verse after verse.
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
As I said at the on-set, I believe in what the Bible says, and not in what it does not rule out. Arminianism is based on lots of scriptural truth, well founded but it has, in my opinion three problems. The bible clearly says God chose us individually during our lifetime, not before creation, because we were rich in faith and loved God. James 2:5. He chose us by spiritually placing us in Christ, thus making us members of the corporately elected group of His redemption plan, the body of Christ, the church, the called out.
Hi Skandelon, I bolded my statement. Notice I did not say, "God chose for certain individuals to come to faith? "
I did not reject the Calvinist view of Omniscience because I was trying to preclude exhaustive foreknowledge. but because of Scripture.
Hi Skandelon, I bolded my statement. Notice I did not say, "God chose for certain individuals to come to faith? "
I did not reject the Calvinist view of Omniscience because I was trying to preclude exhaustive foreknowledge. but because of Scripture.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status