ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 1
- Thread starter ChristisKing
- Start date
- Status
Philetus
New member
RobE said:
Rob,
You need to stop taking things out of context and shooting from the hip if you want to have a serious discussion.
That's what this thread is becoming. Your honest concerns are welcome. Potshots don't help. Take your position to its lovical end for me. In your view, why is it necessary for God to even have forknowledge ?
Philetus
hermes said:
God did not fail in His project. If He would have quit after the Fall of man, Satan would have triumphed. God would have been foiled in His project to create significant others who would enter into give-and-take reciprocal love relationships. There was risk in not creating robots, but God's contingency plan allowed for the triumph of good over evil. He will succeed in calling out and redeeming a people for Himself who will rule and reign with Him in the end (despite Israel and the Church's propensity to wander and fall into spiritual idolatry or unfaithfulness at times).
His project is multi-faceted. The core of His project is loving relationships with His creation and the need to redeem them after their tragic rebellion. It is about the glory and greatness of God to rule the universe (but not as solitary being without others to share in His life and greatness).
HEY THERE GODRULZ
HEY THERE GODRULZ
godrulz: Nice proof texting . . . This does not mean that every second of my life is part of a meticulous, fatalistic blueprint.
mtims540: I agree godrulz :thumb: ; I have a heart and mind of my own that thinks out choices and wills through planning, action and deeds.
Nevertheless,
I AM NOT A GOD WHO CAN DO THESE THINGS INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY FROM THE INTENTIONS AND PURPOSE OF MY CREATOR!!
That is to say, ‘His will trumps all others’ :noway: , THAT’S what I believe the Bible really says!
HEY THERE GODRULZ
godrulz: Nice proof texting . . . This does not mean that every second of my life is part of a meticulous, fatalistic blueprint.
mtims540: I agree godrulz :thumb: ; I have a heart and mind of my own that thinks out choices and wills through planning, action and deeds.
Nevertheless,
I AM NOT A GOD WHO CAN DO THESE THINGS INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY FROM THE INTENTIONS AND PURPOSE OF MY CREATOR!!
That is to say, ‘His will trumps all others’ :noway: , THAT’S what I believe the Bible really says!
mtims540 said:
There is a difference between general intentions and micromanaging every detail. We can do nothing apart from God sustaining our lives. He can intervene and override when He wants or needs to, but He choses not to do so all of the time (we have significant freedom and our choices do matter).
godrulz: . . . we have significant freedom and our choices do matter
mtims540: Amen, however, consider this if you will . . . I have a heart . . . etc, blah
.
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Mat. 15:19).
Notice it: "And when the woman saw [in her heart] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eye [in her heart], and a tree to be desired [in her heart] to make one wise [an idol of the heart], she took [’For out of the heart proceed ... thefts...’] of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen. 3:6).
I notice that last phrase "...and did eat"! It was not the "eating" of the fruit that made her a sinner -- I believe she had ALREADY sinned by looking, lusting, and fantasizing about her potential wisdom. It was AFTER she sinned that she "did eat."
The good news is that all of our suffering hearts is for a grand purpose and will ultimately bring huge rewards. Paul tells us how GOD SUBJECTED the whole creation to these many evils, he gives us this comforting thought:
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [’groaning and travailing in pain together until now’ Ver 22] are not worthy to be compared with the GLORY which shall be revealed in US" (Ver. 18).
IS GOD RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THIS OR NOT? Which is to say,
I AM NOT A GOD WHO CAN DO THESE THINGS INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY FROM THE INTENTIONS AND PURPOSE OF MY CREATOR!!
> > > suffer the significant freedom and choices of my heart < < <
mtims540: Amen, however, consider this if you will . . . I have a heart . . . etc, blah
."For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Mat. 15:19).
Notice it: "And when the woman saw [in her heart] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eye [in her heart], and a tree to be desired [in her heart] to make one wise [an idol of the heart], she took [’For out of the heart proceed ... thefts...’] of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen. 3:6).
I notice that last phrase "...and did eat"! It was not the "eating" of the fruit that made her a sinner -- I believe she had ALREADY sinned by looking, lusting, and fantasizing about her potential wisdom. It was AFTER she sinned that she "did eat."
The good news is that all of our suffering hearts is for a grand purpose and will ultimately bring huge rewards. Paul tells us how GOD SUBJECTED the whole creation to these many evils, he gives us this comforting thought:
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [’groaning and travailing in pain together until now’ Ver 22] are not worthy to be compared with the GLORY which shall be revealed in US" (Ver. 18).
IS GOD RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF THIS OR NOT? Which is to say,
I AM NOT A GOD WHO CAN DO THESE THINGS INDEPENDENTLY AND FREELY FROM THE INTENTIONS AND PURPOSE OF MY CREATOR!!
> > > suffer the significant freedom and choices of my heart
< < <
RobE
New member
Didn't realize I was taking pot shots.
Didn't realize I was taking pot shots.
Why is it necessary fo God to even have foreknowledge?
He's the First Cause, of course.
Your actions are precipitated by other events, which are in turn precipitated by other events, etc, etc, etc......
Cause and Effect.
He(the creator) made you with the abilities to do or to do otherwise. He understands what causes create what effects. He therefore, according to the laws of logic, knows what effects those will have in a constant change from Alpha to Omega. Does He live 'outside of time' or is He just the creator who understands His creation completely? I'm not sure.
However, there are several question that occur to me regarding 'Open Theism'.
I'll take them one at a time.
1) Does open theism in any way make you the 'First Cause' of anything?
Rob
Didn't realize I was taking pot shots.
Philetus said:
Why is it necessary fo God to even have foreknowledge?
He's the First Cause, of course.
Your actions are precipitated by other events, which are in turn precipitated by other events, etc, etc, etc......
Cause and Effect.
He(the creator) made you with the abilities to do or to do otherwise. He understands what causes create what effects. He therefore, according to the laws of logic, knows what effects those will have in a constant change from Alpha to Omega. Does He live 'outside of time' or is He just the creator who understands His creation completely? I'm not sure.
However, there are several question that occur to me regarding 'Open Theism'.
I'll take them one at a time.
1) Does open theism in any way make you the 'First Cause' of anything?
Rob
Last edited:
RobE
New member
godrulz said:
Not really. Pinnock, Boyd, and Sanders certainly take a lot from process philosophy and process theology; however, Hartshorne, Pelagius, and Aristotle came to the same conclusions.
Obviously not Satan in my opinion, but it's apparently crossed your mind. Ha. Ha.
Truly Your Friend,
Rob
seekinganswers
New member
Philetus said:
It's all good
. I will try to do the same on my part. (that smiley doesn't mean sarcasm here)Philetus said:
I just want to elaborate a little bit on what I see to be the problem with Cobb. You see process theology comes out of the philosophy of Liebnitz who along with other philosophers and even theologians of his day were trying to understand the elements of the universe as being manifestations of single substance; they wanted to explain the universe through one overarching and controlling reality. Liebnitz developed a philosophy where monads were the explanation. They were millions of units of substance that would do things as they were destined to do them, and could do nothing else. Humans and all of reality were composed of millions and billions of these monadic structures that could explain all that occurs in the known Universe. What is funny with Liebnitz's theory is that it is grounded in a very fatalistic understanding of the universe. He was much closer to the Calvinists than he was to the Arminians, for he saw a universe that was fated to come into existance and to do exactly as the monads had been programmed to do (by God or whatever it may have been; in fact, Liebnitz suggests that even God is monadic in structure).
Out of Liebnitz's camp comes a theologian/philosopher named Whitehead who tries to put a particularly "Christian" understanding on Liebnitz's theories. He proceeds to change a basic understanding of the theory. You see, Liebnitz had monads without windows in them in his theory (that is to say the monads performed their functions without knowledge of what the other monads were doing). Whitehead wanted to change this. So he spoke of the world as composed of these monadic structures just as Liebnitz had suggested in his theories, but then he goes on to talk about God as a Monad with a window. In other words, God's frame of reference could change, and, in fact, God through those "windows" could affect the life of other monads. This is actually the closest we come to Calvinism in the entire theory. God sets the other monads into motion and they just do what they're supposed to do.
And just when you think you've had enough of this garbage, along comes Cobb. Now Cobb is a twentieth century theologian, and he certainly is not going to use the same terminology that was used by Whitehead and Liebnitz, but he comes out of this line of thinking. And he proposed a different structure to the entire theory. First of all, he made all the monads open (i.e. having windows). And he simplified this into an understanding of will, i.e. God has a will to affect change and by that will affects the Creation, but the Creation also has a will (particularly in human beings) and they also by that will affect change in the Creator. So both the Creator and the Creation are defined by this single underlying reality of will. Now the Creator is only made special because this God is the first cause in the system, i.e. God sets things into motion. God's is the first will. But as the system is crank-started by God, it gets going and catches both God and the Creation up in itself. So once God sets things into motion, than humans can respond and affect God. Now this is a constant exchange, so that through the exchange God learns and progresses along with Creation about this relationship with humanity and humanity with God. And Cobb uses this to understand the god of the Old Testament as the god who did not really know what he was doing, but who became a more relating God found in the New Testament through Jesus Christ who had learned enough to change his ways. The God of the Old and the New is the same, just one who has progressed along with humanity.
Now I would imagine you are as offended by this as I am, but I want to point out some particular problems that I find in this little narrative. First, it assumes progress. In other words, we human beings have become more civilized than those who came before us; we are better at relating with one other than any who came before us. And this is witnessed in "progressive" systems of government and economics. In other words, we now know what it is truly to be free and have cast off all systems of tyrany and violence or are putting them on the run. Now I'm not saying that Cobb would be an open supporter of Bush and his philosophy on progress (because in fact I know that he is not; he thinks this is being accomplished through other means than war). But I am saying that Cobb buys into the presuppositions made by the Enlightenment, that humanity on a whole is progressing to better and better systems of governance so as to protect "freedom" and "human rights". If this were not true, than Cobb's entire system breaks down, for if humanity is not "progressing" than this entire thing is useless.
Now my objection to the first assumption is simple. I have been among people who have been in the most tyranical systems of governance who have demonstrated to me a far better grasp of freedom than we could ever hope to have in our current system of Democracy/Capitalism. And what is worse, I have seen these very people suffering at the hands of the very systems we claim to be in "progress" for a better humanity. I have been to Mumbai where there are vast slums created by the distortive affects of a system that draws everyone to the city for a job and yet does not supply enough jobs for everyone, and because of the supply is able to pay the people far less than they can live on. I have worked along the border of Mexico and the US and have seen what kind of justice and mercy and love come from borders. It is a hideous reality in our world. And when I see signs that are posted at all the entrances of the border of the US and Mexico that call "aliens to pull out identification" (for those coming into the US) I am sickened by the lies we have bought into that make us believe that we are here for all those who are weary and tired to make them free (the story told at the Statue of Liberty). You see, Cobb assumes something about humanity that I will not submit myself to, because I know it is not the truth taught to us in Christ. Cobb wants to believe that we are free in our will, and all I see is that we are slaves and don't know it. We are slaves to a will that would cause us to forget who we really are and to look beyond our neighbor for treasures that will fade and decay over time. We need to see that our will is not freedom but slavery, because as soon as we are in our will we forget God and our neighbor and become suggestable to take on practices that are neither positive for us or for our neighbor.
This, Philetus, is still an issue I have with what you are saying in your posts as well. You have continued to identify the will of humanity as a freedom for us, as a good thing in and of itself. And I won't deny that will in humanity can be good. But I want to be sure that when we talk about the good of the will, it needs to be a will that understands its limitations and that is able to see itself for what it really is, i.e. a Creation of God. The will of humanity that looks beyond what is true and embraces a lie (i.e. that humans can be anything more than mortals who submit to the will of God for the whole of Creation) than it becomes our slavery. And God will not forcibly remove us from that, for such a move on God's part does not gaurantee that we will see the truth. God will simply live in truth because God is truth, and as God reveals truth in himself humanity will see the light. For a human with a will that is not submitted to God is a human in darkness. And a human in darkness is not free.
The second problem I see in Cobb's theory comes from his other assumption. It is an idea he has picked up from Liebnitz's time that all of reality can be understood from a unification theory. There is an underlying substance that unites all things. And Cobb will say that this unity for all things is found in our drive for relationship. It is relationship that stands above all and that submits both God and humanity to itself. If I thought he was very wrong on the first point, I see him loosing his grip on reality altogether on this point. For here Cobb has engaged in idolatry. For the real God in Cobb's system is relationship; it's not God and what God has revealed to us. Relationship stands above all things (like the impersonal mediator of the state) and makes sure that God and humanity are kept in line. This language is so embedded in the humanistic philosophies of the Enlightenment that I am still in awe as to how people cannot see past it.
But, Philetus, what I see in Cobb is not easy for me to dismiss, for Cobb might be other than me, but when I see my own brothers and sisters in Christ engaging with the world on the same basic premises of Cobb's theory, it makes me want to cry. They will outright reject Cobb and they will embrace their "traditional" omni-views of God. But they will still find "progress" to be true and embrace its narrative as given to us by the state (modernity), and they will submit God to the category of relationship, though they will think that they are simply stating an attribute. Their rejection of Cobb is cheap, because they didn't understand him in the first place and ended up proving his point among themselves better than he did.
It is at this point that I look to Augustine. I do not look to Augustine to understand the omni-God. I know very well that Augustine is going beyond his reach at that point. But what I really like about Augustine is his foundation. He might go farther than he should go with his theories, but his foundation is true. For the grounding that Augustine gives to the Creation and God is all wrapped up in God. Without God nothing would be that is. And without God nothing could sustain itself. This is where Paul's acquisition (and tweaking) of Greek philosophy is very profound and good. "For in God we live and move and have our being." This phrase that Paul uses in Acts in his proclamation to the Atheneans is different than the traditional Greek phrase as worded by the original poet (who had a very pantheistic view of the world). But it is clear that Paul has taken it from a Greek source and has changed it to reverse its meaning. Before humans had searched for God in the Creation; afterwards Paul declared that the Creation can only be understood in terms of the Creator.
This is what I mean about starting with the mysterious God. It is not to say that we should try to understand God though we have nothing to start from. It is to say that we must first see ourselves as the contingent beings we are, and through this truth we can grope for God (that we might possibly maybe at some point stumble upon him, as Paul puts it). And it is in light of this stance of humility and searching that the light of God's Son can be received. For if we take the stance of already being in the light on God, than the light of Christ will not be seen (for we have refused to find ourselves in the dark; we grope for a light that is no light at all, and when the real light comes we don't see it). But if we humbly submit to a God who is other than us, who is our Creator, and in whom we are sustained, than and only then will we receive the light that he gives through his Son.
I know it may seem like I'm nit-picking or becoming too "political" in what I'm saying, but I hope I have demonstrated that what I say is grounded in the scriptures and not in my agenda. My life in the church has shaped me in profound ways, and has taught me to be free. This is not a freedom that pretends I have a will that is sovereign (that I can be anything other than a Creation of God, and that my life can be anything more than a gift from God) . It is a freedom that is able to see the truth and live out of it. It is a freedom to see that I in myself and in the "freedom" given to me by a world that pretends it knows what freedom is, is actually a darkness with the power to enslave me. It is because of the freedom that is given by God's kindness that he will not overwhelm me with the truth so that I reject him. It is a grace given to all by a Creator who really and truly loves his Creation, because he will not let the Creation be its own destruction. He will be patient and suffer long our offenses so that as many as will listen to the truth might be saved. I love freedom too, Philetus, but I want to be sure that the freedom I enjoy is true freedom. So I will look to my God for that freedom, and not to a world that has tried to define freedom in its own way. Freedom is not my ability to choose (as the serpent might tell me in the garden); freedom is my ability to see the truth and to live within that truth (which also implies an ability to lose my sight). But I will not pretend that sin is a reality that God allows. Sin is a corruption that God allows (once again, sorry about the nit-picking, but language is important to me, seeing how I have taken three foreign languages and would love to learn more). God will let us be destroyed in the end if we refuse to see the truth, but that destruction is not truth by any stretch of the word or a reality that can sustain itself. It has taken the truth and corrupted it (turned it into a lie); it has taken what is and turned it into naught (death is not a reality in itself, it is only the absence of life, just as darkness is the absence of light).
Sin is not a challenge to God's Creation simply because it is a coersion of the Creation that tries to take what is God's and use it to manipulate and destroy. It is not true power at all, but is a power that only has power because it is grounded in what is truly powerful. It is like discord in a song, that tries to change itself into the melody, but in fact only ends up complimenting the song's true melody. It is not to say that sin isn't real; it is just my attempt to say that sin has no power.
So rather than seeing freedom as a choice between good and evil, I would rather talk about freedom as the ability to see the truth or to not see it. I will not pretend that humanity becomes something else at the fall. Humans remain humans even after sin (they are just less human than they were before). They don't become antihumans (like matter and anti-matter). Their life remains a gift from God, and it is sustained in God (though they have rejected him). And they decay, not because they weren't disposed to decay before, but because God in God's grace will not allow them to become what they have envisioned forever. They will not be sustained in their sin, but will die. Our bodies were mortal before the fall (we were created from the dust of the earth). But those mortal bodies were sustained by the life of God (from the Tree of Life) into eternal life.
I'm sorry if I have gone on a tangent in all of this, but it is more development of thought from my position. It doesn't erase the differences we have (in fact it might reveal more), but it is an attempt to find at least some similarities, and to address where my concerns are coming from. Cobb's theology is a real threat, in my opinion, not because it holds truth, but because it is really good at presenting itself as the truth, even though it is a lie, and it reveals the distortion that has infiltrated us. And though I know Open Theism is not the same, I am still greatly troubled, because the premises of Cobb's theology (as found in the humanistic philosophies of the Enlightenment, the ones "embodied" in the modern state) are premises that even the Open-theists submit themselves to as well as do the traditionalists of the Evangelicals, and yes, even the Calvinists. We keep seeing one another as the enemy, when in fact the enemy was ourselves and the world, when we were willing to allow the world to define the nature of reality. And like the blind leading the blind, we have fallen into a pit of darkness, and we think we are seeing light ("Enlightenment").
Now my post has already waxed long, and I will have to address the other points you raise at another time (because I have worn myself out responding to the first one). But thank you for your sharing, and, yes, your words are wise, because you say them with humility and only one who is wise knows to be humble. I know this all too well, because I far too often am the fool who knows too much for his own good. Just don't allow my words to puff you up or to offend you, receive them in grace, and know that you have received the truth, because the truth produces that kind of humility that you have demonstrated to me. If you can master the truth, than you have created of truth for yourself. But if the truth masters you, than you are humbled, and have received what is from God, for only his Son is the way, the truth, and the life. No one will come to the Father accept through him.
Peace,
Michael
"...in your book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there were none of them." Ps. 139:16 "But I trust in you, O LORD; I say, 'you are myGod.' My times are in your hand." Ps. 31:14,15godrulz said:
"But He is unchangable, and who can turn Him back? What He desires, that He does, for He will complete [He performeth the thing (kjv)] what He appoints for me. and many such things are in His mind." Job 23:13,14 "no man should be moved by these afflictions; for you know that we are appointed thereunto." 1Ths 3:3
"The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD." Job1:21 Job knew this not because he had received some special revelation telling him, "Hey, Job, this is God. Though evil men have done wickedly, though they have robbed, and slaim, yet this thing for you is from me. Those wicked men are nothing that you should fear them, but all your times are not in their hands, but in mine." You see, Job and David knew God, acknowledged His reign, and spoke truthfully about God's absolute, all encompassing providence. It was on the basis of their confidence in God's all encompassing providence that they had the wisdom to so speak. And in verse 22 of Job the Bible says, "in all this Job did not sin or charge God with wrong.." But Job's wife was FOOLISH: "You speak as one ot foolish women. Shall we receive good from God, and shall we not also receive evil?"
hermes said:
The endless stream of Piper's and Calvin's proof texts have been credibly answered by Arminians and Open Theists. Free will theism, not determinism, is defensible.
What is your point? We all agree on the validity of these verses, but understand them differently. Sovereignty does not mean manipulative, meticulous control. This is contrary to other verses that you conveniently overlook.
Job's situation was unique. It is not a normative picture of God's and Satan's dealings with all individuals at all times. Do not go beyond the historical narrative and make a doctrinal thesis out of it in a broader application than intended. Do not extrapolate everything from the specific to the general (leads to contradictions with other relevant passages).
"there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge."" How very true!! Both Job and David had been blessed with a sufficient amount of grace so that they could say with the apostle, "of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever, amen. THEY KNEW WHAT WAS NORMATIVE AND SO THEY SPOKE THE TRUTH ACCORDINGLY. The open theists try to deny the glory of God which Paul acknowledged in Rom. 11:36.by attempting to make the normative that which is agreeable to their denials of God's glory.godrulz said:
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies" (Mat. 15:19).
Notice it: "And when the woman saw [in her heart] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eye [in her heart], and a tree to be desired [in her heart] to make one wise [an idol of the heart], she took [’For out of the heart proceed ... thefts...’] of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen. 3:6).
I notice that last phrase "...and did eat"! It was not the "eating" of the fruit that made her a sinner -- I believe she had ALREADY sinned by looking, lusting, and fantasizing about her potential wisdom. It was AFTER she sinned that she "did eat."
The good news is that all of our suffering hearts is for a grand purpose and will ultimately bring huge rewards. Paul tells us how GOD SUBJECTED the whole creation to these many evils, he gives us this comforting thought:
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [’groaning and travailing in pain together until now’ Ver 22] are not worthy to be compared with the GLORY which shall be revealed in US" (Ver. 18).
> > > suffer the significant freedom and choices of my heart < < <
Notice it: "And when the woman saw [in her heart] that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eye [in her heart], and a tree to be desired [in her heart] to make one wise [an idol of the heart], she took [’For out of the heart proceed ... thefts...’] of the fruit thereof, and did eat" (Gen. 3:6).
I notice that last phrase "...and did eat"! It was not the "eating" of the fruit that made her a sinner -- I believe she had ALREADY sinned by looking, lusting, and fantasizing about her potential wisdom. It was AFTER she sinned that she "did eat."
The good news is that all of our suffering hearts is for a grand purpose and will ultimately bring huge rewards. Paul tells us how GOD SUBJECTED the whole creation to these many evils, he gives us this comforting thought:
"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time [’groaning and travailing in pain together until now’ Ver 22] are not worthy to be compared with the GLORY which shall be revealed in US" (Ver. 18).
> > > suffer the significant freedom and choices of my heart
< < <To accuse Reformed people of adopting philosophical ideas from the Greeks is to not understand the differences between greek philosophies fatalism and the sovereignty of God. It is a damnable accusation and anyone who would dare be so deceitful as to make such an accusation should have the modicum of guts it takes to quote the portion of heathenish fatalistic belief they think typifies the Reformed faith and SHOW how there is a semblance between them. The accusation is oh, so cute; buj is is also so wickedly deceitful. If you think you deserve better than to be spoken of in this manner, then JUSTIFY YOUR DAMNABLE CHARGES AGAINST THE TRUTH OF THE REFORMED FAITH.godrulz said:
"In everything give thanks because this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you."
1 Thess. 5:18
hermes said:
Calvin said that double predestination is a horrible doctrine, yet He believed it. TULIP is deductive, not based on inductive exegesis. Total depravity does not mean total inability. Election is not uncondtional. It is corporate, not individual. The atonement is efficacious for all who believe. It is not limited to the so-called elect. Grace is resistible. Salvation is not coerced nor causative. Perseverance is synergistic, not monergistic. Eternity is not timelessness, but endless time. A denial of the Reformed, Calvinistic, Augustinian creeds is not tantamount to a denial of God and Christianity. Sproul is not right about everything. We have debated Calvinism vs other isms on countless threads. Do not jump to conclusions. We will not resolve the issue on this thread.
I respect many aspects of the Reformed faith and share common beliefs in essential areas.
What is your denominational background? There are a variety of Reformed beliefs.
Calvinism is not Islamic or fatalisitic determinism, but it is not free will theism either. Hyper-sovereignty views should not be confused with biblical, providential, relational sovereignty. Begging the question and circular reasoning does not prove anything any more than proof texts out of context (pretexts) proves anything. Rejecting a straw man caricature of a view is also not reasonable.
- Status