-
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 ROSE Acronym
- Thread starter humblethinker
- Start date
- Status
humblethinker
Active Member
If God acts in ways that we cannot understand then, we cannot speak about it logically. If in all of His ways we cannot understand then, we cannot speak about it logicall or come to any reasonable opinions on the matter.
So, yes, if it is the case that God is sovereign without qualification (as in meticulously controlling everything) and that man, at the same time, is 'free', then that is something that we cannot understand, since that is contradictory, and none of us would be able to logically reply to the other's arguments on the matter. However, God's word encourages us not to accept contradictions, especially about God, which of course is logical.
Well... let me think about that... If he predestines it how is that different than determining it? ...hmmm... Are you saying that he can predestine a single event but has multiple ways in which he causes it to happen? In that case He's still ultimately or finally causing it to happen, right? Maybe it's not both, like you say, but the difference is without distinction in the end, no? ...you may be correct but I'd have to have it explained to me a little more.
That is how I understood it as well. But, how can that be explained? The bigger problem I have with that idea is that one has to come to the Bible with that philosophy already assumed to get those conclusions from the Bible. All passages relating to time/eternity can be reasonably understood from the perspective of everlasting-ness. And, what's more is that some (many or most?) verses pertaining to time/eternity specifically imply or even state a temporal, everlasting-ness. These two statements cannot be said for the 'timeless', 'eternal now' view.
Which I am willing to admit, that this is a consistent and coherent view only if you will concede that not a single possibility can therefore exist. Do you concede such? I will commend you for being consistent if you do! What all systems of thought must acknowledge and not deny is that a 'thing' cannot 'exist' and 'not exist' simultaneously in the same way. (Explanation: If God believes it is not a possibility then it cannot be a possibility, regardless of whether we are convinced that it is a possibility and base our decisions on that illusion.)
This is why I find it difficult to believe the idea that God, prior to creation, foreknew the certainty of all free choices of all potential creatures. The following would seem to be the case then:
- There never was, never has and never will be true possibility for His creatures.
- That many people are convinced that God has given them true possibility but the perceived possibility is only illusory. However, it is the case that these people are conviced that they are real and therefore freely choose as they would, do and will. They will be held morally accountable for this choice as well. In this case God approves and finds joy in creating beings that cannot actually apreciate the ontological reality of possibility... they can only be convinced of it.
- God's actual intervention as portrayed in the Bible and as you and I now experience is not intended to produce real options for people but only to give the illusion that the possibility we see is a legitimate one, and of course we, of our own free will, make our decision. Here we have scripture indicating that something is a truth but it actually is not, at least not in the way the creatures think it is. So, the integrity of God's word is not aligned with ontological reality.
- When scripture shows God instructing the prophet to convince the people to repent, therefore giving them the opportunity to actualize a possibility, It cannot be the case that God genuinely thinks that the people will respond other than how he foreknew they certainly would respond. Why would God genuinely feel hurt and grief in the way that we think He does over something he knew prior to committing himself to this project of creation? Therefore either we realize that we are mistaken about how God truly hurts and grieves over rejection or it is the case that He is 'acting the part' and we are convinced that he hurts and grieves thusly.
My point exactly... except that if He's as sovereign as the Cals say he is then nothing can be allowed so He is content for us to think He allowed something...
And this is one reason why I reject closed theism.
What is the point of the acronymn - it gives a brief explkanation of 4 views that appear mutually exclusive to each other - or am I missing something?
:thumbs::thumbs::applause::wavey:
Orthodox Baptists do not believe in organizations that dictate beliefs, i.e those that govern should not dictate beliefs. Exhaustive determinism, where God predestines everything, is not an orthodox Christian belief. Thus Closed Theism is unorthodox, and claiming God punishes us for the sins He predestined is unorthodox. To say God does not respond to our prayers because the future is fixed is unorthodox.
We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
No, we believe the Bible does that! However let us be clear, that by the simple definition of the term 'orthodox' requires consensus, which suggests a degree of organisation doesn't it!
Really, the last 2000 years of christainity stand against you on that one my friend!
You seem confused, I can only assume you are using the term 'closed theism' in opposition to open theism. Yet you seem to have norrowed down the everything opposed to open theism to one view, which is incorrect as every Christain viewposint (which covers a wide spectrum) is opposed to open theism.
Here you show you do not understand the view you argeu against, God does not predestine sin, but it is part of he sovereign decree - did he decree that Jesus would die to save us or not? Was the murder of Jesus a sin?
Well that is a nonsense statement if ever I heard one! If God has dertermined the end from the beginning (Isa 46:10) it also means he must have determined the emans of arriving at that end as well, and if that means is prayer then the prayer is also determined
We must also be careful to accurately represent views we reject
humblethinker
Active Member
The watershed issue is whether God is ever affected by and responds to what we do. All 'isms' that allow for free will are on one side and all 'isms' that deny free will are on the other.
So, before creation, God decrees that each sin happen but didn't predestin it? What does it mean for God to decree? Is His decree is as certain as the doing of it? Nothing can be done that wasn't first decreed by God, correct?
Decree: an authoritative order having the force of law.
Okay, so God creates the creature and orders that he sin, correct?
If God determines everything prior to creation then does He really think that any created beings are authentically admiring Him and genuinely praising and extolling His greatness?
I agree with this. If only calvinists would obey your words here. The fundamentalist ethos is really thick among certain calvinist circles.We must also be careful to accurately represent views we reject
I believe this statement is wrong concerning Baptists.
Why be a Baptist if one does not adhere to a certain basic set of beliefs.
Every church I have ever been a member of, I have been asked to read at least a statement of faith, if not an entire constitution, and been asked if I agree with. If I don't agree with it, I should look elsewhere for a church I do agree with. How can two walk together unless they agree.
I am not a Calvinist, and neither is our church. Not too long ago a young man who became convinced of the reformed position did the right thing and resigned from the church because "his soteriology was different than what we taught." Since that time he has taken the logical steps of where reformed doctrine leads a person, and is now attending a Presbyterian Church.
Great Question
Nothing wrong with leadership presenting doctrines for adoption by the believers. So in our constitution we have a statement of beliefs. The body confirmed those beliefs and therefore represent what we believe the Bible teaches. Nothing wrong with that.
However, if a leader comes in and desires to alter the doctrines, then a revision and vote are necessary. In other forms of church polity, the leaders would decide and simply inform the members what doctrine they must accept to remain a member of the organization. We are Baptists, not Presbyterians.
And the Separatists that helped create this nation (USA) believed in the separation of church and state, so doctrine could not be imposed by those that govern. This is bedrock orthodoxy. We either believe in the Priesthood of Believers or we think some folks are so special they can overrule what the spirit led body discerns as truth.
Nothing wrong with leadership presenting doctrines for adoption by the believers. So in our constitution we have a statement of beliefs. The body confirmed those beliefs and therefore represent what we believe the Bible teaches. Nothing wrong with that.
However, if a leader comes in and desires to alter the doctrines, then a revision and vote are necessary. In other forms of church polity, the leaders would decide and simply inform the members what doctrine they must accept to remain a member of the organization. We are Baptists, not Presbyterians.
And the Separatists that helped create this nation (USA) believed in the separation of church and state, so doctrine could not be imposed by those that govern. This is bedrock orthodoxy. We either believe in the Priesthood of Believers or we think some folks are so special they can overrule what the spirit led body discerns as truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
Exhaustive determinism is false doctrine. God would not predestine our sins then punish us for those sins. All Calvinism offers seems like shuck jive to address their foundation upon a logical impossibility.
Closed Theism claims the future is fixed, i.e. exhaustive determinism. If the future is not fixed and mankind can alter the outcome of their lives by choosing life over death, then Closed Theism is false doctrine.
Closed Theism claims the future is fixed, i.e. exhaustive determinism. If the future is not fixed and mankind can alter the outcome of their lives by choosing life over death, then Closed Theism is false doctrine.
Perhaps there is a middle ground you are searching for. Clarke Pinnock turned to Open Theism is his latter days. Here is how it is described:
http://www.knoxpcea.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=78&Itemid=122
Do you really believe God gives up his power to his creatures?
humblethinker
Active Member
You can do more research on open theism.
The way that I read it and understood it was that God was relinquishing power.
The same article goes on to say:
"God knows everything current but not all of the future" says Pinnock, and Open Theism. I would count that as heresy, as it goes directly contrary to the omniscience of God. Thus it is no straw man or inaccuracy to say that open theism takes away from the power of God, or rather that God relinquishes some of his power. That has gone to an extreme.
I am not a Calvinist. I do believe in the free will of man. I believe that God answers prayer and that there is a reason to pray. And yet I still believe in the sovereignty of God, that God is still in control, that salvation is all of Him.
No that is not the watershed because there is no christain theological standpoint that denies that God responds to what we do.
Let me remind you of what I was responding to;
Van said:
'Predestine' is a laoded theological term that has certian connatations and 'decree' is another theolofgical term that has a different emphasis. Oredestine is used in more proactive sense then decree - so for example the reformed believer will declare that God has decreed that sinners will be punished in hell, however he has predestined some to be saved from that end.
No, he decrees the sin, he does not order it. The language you choose is perjorative and innacurate and shows little regard for the careful wording used by monergistic believers over the last two thousand years. We commit the sin of our own choice and remain responsible for that sin.
The question makes no sense, because it is based on a false premise that something can only be genuine if there is no outward stimuli exerted to influence it - nothing the world works like that my freind.
The question also assumes that my view equates to God forcing us to worship him, however the truth is far different. God has given me a new heart that loves him and loves his law (Ex 36:26-27)
So because some calvinists fail on this, you feel justified in making a blanket statement about calvinists? Now putting aside that redirect I was challenging you to accurately represent the view you seem to be rejecting
This speaks more of your obession then any misrepresentation on my part or Toplady's my freind!
As I have made clear on numerous occasions Toplady is merely asserting the impotency of the will in salvation.
As I have also made clear on numerous occasions you are the only person I have ever come across in 10 years of internet posting that has read this comment in any other way.
So I wonder where the problem lies here?
Beyond saying this I will not get drawn on this again - goodbye HoS
Do you hold to God being in the process of learning than as he goes future events, that he decided to operate in time the same way that His creations do?
So he has been evolving and adapting in order to allow us 'real free will decisions?
that His highest regard is to maintain free will for man, so he decided to in a sense lose His? or else have it deopendent to some ways upon ours?
There you go again DHK. You assert absolutely false things to Calvinists. Of course we believe in prayer. It's not unCalvinistic of us to beleve that the Lord has enjoined us to do so and from His own examples.
You may be heading in a more orthodox position with that statement but I would like to see it fleshed-out. And I wonder if you would still agree with your assertions of the past where you said things like God had nothing to do with you being saved etc.
I wasn't attacking Calvinism. If anything I was clarifying my position in opposition to Open Theism and in relation to Van's. Though I also am not a Calvinist, I do recognize that Calvinists pray and believe that God answers prayer. Have I said otherwise?
God has everything to do with my salvation. I can assert with all confidence and authority that salvation is all of God. However, when I state that you will disagree with me simply because under the umbrella of God's sovereignty I believe that God has given man a measure of free will. Even though he knows (by his omniscience) what man's choice will be, it is man that still has to make the choice whether or not to receive or reject Christ.
So do wish to recant of your former statements:
"He may be involved in our salvation."
"God doesn't give faith to believe."
You had said that "superior wisdom and keen perception one comes to Christ.
When I had said that "God mercifuuly intervened and caused you to be born from above." You replied with :"Nope,sorry;I am not a robot."
- Status