The Closed Theism of Calvinism

[Iconoclast]

Vantastic.....more vile heresy.

That a boy Van....do not pay attention to anyone who offers correction....

just keep listening to the voices in your head..

god is the author of sin

calvinism is evil

god is a monster

only you understand the greek

god credits the poor

folks, just listen to me

let me tell you what the apostles meant to say

:BangHead:

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Vantastic.....more vile heresy.

That a boy Van....do not pay attention to anyone who offers correction....

just keep listening to the voices in your head..








:BangHead:

Nuf said brother icon—nuf said---yet we r the bullies unfairly targeting the poor non reformed Van---yet I’ve never heard skan, web, winn, or any other non-reformed brother take it this far----hopefully some will begin 2 understand r concerns now!

 

[Iconoclast]

Nuf said brother icon—nuf said---yet we r the bullies unfairly targeting the poor non reformed Van---yet I’ve never heard skan, web, winn, or any other non-reformed brother take it this far----hopefully some will begin 2 understand r concerns now!

GE,
It is one thing to try and learn, or mis-understand some verse or doctrine.
But to blaspheme shamelessly is over the top.Everyone is trying to offer help, but his posts are beyond the hindu guy who was banned the other day.

 

[annsni]

Thanks Ann for agreeing that since God knows the future exhaustively, it is predestined exhaustively, each and every thought and action of each and every creature. That makes God the author of sin.

Thanks for totally not understanding me and completely misrepresenting what I said.

 

[webdog]

Vantastic.....more vile heresy.

That a boy Van....do not pay attention to anyone who offers correction....

just keep listening to the voices in your head..








:BangHead:

Completely out of line no matter how vehemently you disagree. You have some in your own camp posting on this very board espousing some of these things, yet I do not read any of your responses to them like this. Try being consistent.

 

[Iconoclast]

Completely out of line no matter how vehemently you disagree. You have some in your own camp posting on this very board espousing some of these things, yet I do not read any of your responses to them like this. Try being consistent.

I do not see others besides your friends posting the evil idea that God is the author of sin,is a monster or other vile garbage.
Not knowing something,or trying to learn is completely different than everyday,repeatedly attacking God,His person and work,and His people.
He has been asked several times to stop this false teaching,and offered help but continues to get worse and worse.
If i see someone from "my side" as you say post something that is error,I will speak up as well.....do you have an example of such,that when error is posted,gets corrected, then refuses to consider the correction?

Van has had almost everyone caution him,yet he is getting worse and worse.

 

[Van]

Predestination in an active, causal sense is different than foreordination in a permissive sense. God either permits or causes anything that comes to pass. The choice of words is immaterial; the context determines the meaning. I have explained my distinction conceptually. Don't get hung up on semantics.

So you believe God can foreknow something is going to happen, without the future being certain? No, the future must be certain, foreknowledge presupposes the future is certain. Only what is foreknown can happen, so this goes way past God allowing things to happen. The only logical way to view it is if God allows something to happen, He did not directly cause it to happen. But if God foreknows what will happen, then that outcome is certain, predestined.

I think what you are saying is Boettner is wrong, that foreknowledge does not require a certain future.

Another way some Calvinists try to avoid the obvious, that Calvinism is a logical impossibility, is to say God's foreknowledge includes the free choices of people, so He only knows what they will choose freely and when they chose they could have chosen a different outcome. However, none of this clever story of men can be found in scripture, it is a complete work of fiction.

 

[Skandelon]

Predestination in an active, causal sense is different than foreordination in a permissive sense. God either permits or causes anything that comes to pass. The choice of words is immaterial; the context determines the meaning. I have explained my distinction conceptually. Don't get hung up on semantics.

So you believe God can foreknow something is going to happen, without the future being certain? No, the future must be certain, foreknowledge presupposes the future is certain. Only what is foreknown can happen, so this goes way past God allowing things to happen. The only logical way to view it is if God allows something to happen, He did not directly cause it to happen. But if God foreknows what will happen, then that outcome is certain, predestined.

I think what you are saying is Boettner is wrong, that foreknowledge does not require a certain future.

Another way some Calvinists try to avoid the obvious, that Calvinism is a logical impossibility, is to say God's foreknowledge includes the free choices of people, so He only knows what they will choose freely and when they chose they could have chosen a different outcome. However, none of this clever story of men can be found in scripture, it is a complete work of fiction.

So, Van, are you saying that God didn't foreknow that you would believe in Him?

 

[StefanM]

So you believe God can foreknow something is going to happen, without the future being certain? No, the future must be certain, foreknowledge presupposses the future is certain. Only what is foreknown can happen, so this goes whay past God allowing things to happen. The only logical way to view it is if God allows something to happen, He did not directly cause it to happen. But if God foreknows what will happen, then that outcome is certain, predestined.

I think what you are saying is Boettner is wrong, that foreknowledge does not require a certain future.

Foreknowledge does require a certain future in that it is not changeable. If God knows the future, it will happen just as he knows it.

His knowledge, however, did not cause it.

 

[Van]

The Closed Theism of Calvinism turns God into a Monster. Some Calvinists disavow Closed Theism, yet when push comes to shove, they cling to it rather than the Bible.

The Closed Theism of Calvinism as espoused by Boettner is a heresy, because it turns God into a Monster.

 

[StefanM]

The Closed Theism of Calvinism turns God into a Monster. Some Calvinists disavow Closed Theism, yet when push comes to shove, they cling to it rather than the Bible.

The Closed Theism of Calvinism as espoused by Boettner is a heresy, because it turns God into a Monster.

Van,

It is your position that is outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy. If I were you, I would look in the mirror before you start throwing around the term "heresy."

 

[jbh28]

Van,

It is your position that is outside the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy. If I were you, I would look in the mirror before you start throwing around the term "heresy."

You know, it may be time to make some settings changes on our accounts. That way Van's posts will appear as follows:

This message is hidden because Van is on your ignore list.

 

[Van]

Hi Skandelon, I believe what the Bible says. Show me a verse that says God knows the future exhaustively, and I will agree with that view. I have shown you verse after verse that says God does not know "everything" about the future, and so I await your response.

God said, now I know when He stopped Abraham from killing Isaac. Thus He did not know what Abraham would choose to do only seconds before Abraham chose. God says He will forgive our sins and remember them no more forever.

Why did God harden the hearts of those unbelieving Jews in Romans 11? If there choice to not accept Christ was foreknown, then they did not need to be hardened. Or perhaps you are saying God knew they would trust in Christ, and yet hardened them so they could not. Just saying

 

[Van]

Hi StefanM, please read post #61. Now why did you not address your observation toward that poster? I supported with no refutation, that Boettner's view turns God into a Monster. Why not address that?

 

[Skandelon]

Why did God harden the hearts of those unbelieving Jews in Romans 11? If there choice to not accept Christ was foreknown, then they did not need to be hardened.

That presumes that the means of hardening is not what God used to prevent them from coming to faith, doesn't it?

For example, if I had a crystal ball and foreknew that you will respond to this post in agreement, but I wanted you to disagree for whatever reason, I might "harden" you or speak in a parable or provoke you in some way to ensure disagreement.

Or perhaps you are saying God knew they would trust in Christ, and yet hardened them so they could not. Just saying

Yes, he knew they "might turn and be healed," as the scripture says. The hardening ensures the response God wants to accomplish a redemptive purpose.

 

[Tom Bryant]

Let me take a stab at showing that God does indeed know everything, including what might have been.

Mathtew 11:20-24 -

Then He began to denounce the cities in which most of His miracles were done, because they did not repent. 21 "Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles had occurred in Tyre and Sidon which occurred in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.22 "Nevertheless I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. 24 "Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you."

I follow this conversation and cannot imagine that we are actually having to debate the omniscience of God. Part of the problem both sides have in this argument is applying human logic to the actions and person of God, who is above and outside of human logic.

 

[Skandelon]

So, Van, are you saying that God didn't foreknow that you would believe in Him?

Originally Posted by Van
Hi Skandelon, I believe what the Bible says. Show me a verse that says God knows the future exhaustively, and I will agree with that view. I have shown you verse after verse that says God does not know "everything" about the future, and so I await your response.

I'll take that as a "no."

So, your entire life and all the good deeds you do and all the work for the kingdom you accomplish as a believer is also unknown to God?

Is God so blind to the future that all your works as a believer remain unknown to him? Think about it. If he knows you will travel oversees and become a missionary, or if he knows you will post doctrine on forum, then he would know that you came to faith in Him, right?

Now, multiply that by millions and millions of Christians that God somehow didn't know would come to faith in him. That would necessitate that he wouldn't know anything that these people did for the rest of their lives. Not only believers but non-believers too. His not knowing if a man would refuse faith would certainly be foreknown by a simple view of their lives and how they lived it, wouldn't it? I just don't see how you view is even tenable, if I'm understanding you correctly.

 

[annsni]

I'll take that as a "no."

So, your entire life and all the good deeds you do and all the work for the kingdom you accomplish as a believer is also unknown to God?

Is God so blind to the future that all your works as a believer remain unknown to him? Think about it. If he knows you will travel oversees and become a missionary, or if he knows you will post doctrine on forum, then he would know that you came to faith in Him, right?

Now, multiply that by millions and millions of Christians that God somehow didn't know would come to faith in him. That would necessitate that he wouldn't know anything that these people did for the rest of their lives. Not only believers but non-believers too. His not knowing if a man would refuse faith would certainly be foreknown by a simple view of their lives and how they lived it, wouldn't it? I just don't see how you view is even tenable, if I'm understanding you correctly.

What a weak God that would be. I thank God that my God knows everything about my past AND future. I thank God that He prepares me for what will come, knows my children and grandchildren. THAT is the God that I serve.

 

[StefanM]

Hi StefanM, please read post #61. Now why did you not address your observation toward that poster? I supported with no refutation, that Boettner's view turns God into a Monster. Why not address that?

I did not address Iconoclast because his position is orthodox. Yours isn't.

You have not supported without refutation. You are making logical leaps in your argumentation, and you have dismissed any explanation to the contrary. Your position is wrong, unbiblical, unorthodox, and blasphemous.

 

[StefanM]

I just don't see how you view is even tenable, if I'm understanding you correctly.

It's not tenable, and it's not orthodox. It's just plain wrong.

I can accept differences in opinion regarding soteriology. I readily admit that my understanding of election could be incorrect. In Van's case, however, he has gone beyond the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.