themuzicman
Well-known member
Ah, but it is these presuppositions and interpretations that are frequently the source of the Calvinist's theological issues.
Muz
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Ah, but it is these presuppositions and interpretations that are frequently the source of the Calvinist's theological issues.
Muz
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
There are no "issues" with the presupposition made by the Calvinist: that God is the presupposition and that nothing at all can be known by mankind unless one presupposes God exists. Just because you may disagree with the doctrines of divine timelessness, exhaustive knowledge and predestination, man's responsibility, total inability (depravity), and limited atonement, does not invalidate the fact that Calvinism holds together by these tenets and that there are no contradictions in its doctrine. I am regularly bemused by those that would claim they have discovered the new truth that purportedly invalidates two thousand years of beliefs and proper analysis by the greatest minds of the theological ages. These persons should take up their issues with the very first Calvinist, the Apostle Paul.
themuzicman
Well-known member
There are no "issues" with the presupposition made by the Calvinist: that God is the presupposition and that nothing at all can be known by mankind unless one presupposes God exists. Just because you may disagree with the doctrines of divine timelessness, exhaustive knowledge and predestination, man's responsibility, total inability (depravity), and limited atonement, does not invalidate the fact that Calvinism holds together by these tenets and that there are no contradictions in its doctrine. I am regularly bemused by those that would claim they have discovered the new truth that purportedly invalidates two thousand years of beliefs and proper analysis by the greatest minds of the theological ages. These persons should take up their issues with the very first Calvinist, the Apostle Paul.
I've often said that Calvinism is internally consistent, but does not rest on a solid biblical foundation.
There is no way that Paul could be a Calvinist, as he died 1500 years before Calvin wrote the institutes, and I'm pretty sure Paul was rolling over in his grave as parts were written.
Muz
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
Yep, and Paul was an Acts 9 dispensationalist.
Peter was an Acts 2 dispensationalist!
:help:
The story of Paul starts near Acts 9. The story of Peter starts around Acts 2. The gospel of Christ started with His death and resurrection. The gospel of Christ is what Peter AND Paul preached, though Paul certainly added more sophisticated understanding than the fisherman did (both had Jewish background).
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
People in Hell or going to Hell purchased their own tickets to get in there, Clete. I admit that there is a doctrine of reprobation, just as there is a doctrine of election. For reprobation, God has decreed, for reasons know only to Him, to pass some men by with the operations of His special regenerating and saving grace, and to punish them for their sins, to the manifestation of His justice. Yes, God’s decree rendered the entrance of sin into the world certain. And it is a mistake to think that in this life the reprobate are completely destitute of God’s favor. God’s distribution of His natural gifts is not limited by the purpose of election. God does not even allow election and reprobation to determine the measure of those gifts. We readily see how the reprobate often enjoys a larger measure of natural blessings of life than the elect.
Let’s dwell a bit on this point, Clete, starting with God’s knowledge, which can be defined as that perfection of God whereby God, in an entirely unique manner, knows Himself and all things possible and actual in one eternal and most simple act (see, 1 Sam. 2:3; Job 12:13; Ps. 94:9, 147:4; Isa. 29:15, 40:27,28). Some elaboration follows.
God’s knowledge differs from that of man on several different points. God’s knowledge is intuitive, not demonstrative or discursive. As such His knowledge is innate and immediate, not resulting from observation or from a process or reasoning. Since God is a perfect being, His knowledge is also simultaneous and not successive, so that God sees things at once in their totality, and not piecemeal one after another. God’s knowledge is complete and fully conscious, while our knowledge is always partial, often indistinct, and frequently failing to rise into the clear light of consciousness. God’s necessary knowledge (knowledge not determined by an action of divine will) is that knowledge God has of Himself and of all things possible, a knowledge that rests on the consciousness of His omnipotence. The free knowledge of God is the knowledge He has of all things actual—of things that existed in the past, the present, or will exist in the future. This knowledge is founded on God’s infinite knowledge of His own all-comprehensive and unchangeable eternal purpose. We refer to it as free knowledge because it is determined by a concurrent act of the will. One may also see it referred to as scienta visionis, knowledge of vision.
The extent of God’s knowledge is all-comprehensive—God is omniscient. He knows all things as they actually come to pass, past, present, and future and knows them in their real relations. God also knows what is possible and what is actual; all things that might occur under certain circumstances are present to God’s mind. The Scriptures speak of God’s perfect knowledge, Job 37:16, that He looks into man’s hearts, 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9,17; Ps. 139:1-4; Jer. 17:10, that God observes our ways, Deut. 2:7; Job 23:10, 24:23, 31:4; Ps. 1:6, 119:168, that God knows the place of their habitation, Ps. 33:13, and the days of our lives, Ps. 37:18.
Then there is God’s foreknowledge of the free actions of persons, and therefore of conditional events. We can all understand how God can foreknow things when necessity is paramount, but some find it difficult to conceive of God having previous knowledge of the actions which freely originated by man. But scriptures teach us of God’s foreknowledge of contingent events: 1 Sam. 23:10-13; II Kings 13:19; Ps. 81:14,15; Isa. 42:9, 48:18; Jer. 2:2-3, 38:17-20; Ezek. 3:6; Matt. 11:21. And the Scriptures teach us of the freedom of man. Moreover, the Scriptures also do not permit us to deny God’s foreknowledge and man’s freedom. Obviously we have an apparent problem here and I fully admit that the Scriptures do not fully explain the situation. Nevertheless, we can make an approach to a solution.
God has decreed all things, and has decreed them with their causes and conditions in the exact order in which all things come to pass. God’s foreknowledge of future things and also of contingent events rests on His decree. This solves the problem as far as the foreknowledge of God is concerned. But, then we must ask, is God’s predetermination of things consistent with the free will of mankind? I would answer that it is not if the freedom of the will is regarded as arbitrariness, yet this conception of the freedom of mankind is unwarranted. Our freedom is not something indeterminate, hanging in the air that can be swung arbitrarily in either direction. Our freedom is rooted in our nature, connected to our instincts and emotions, determined by our intellectual considerations and by our characters. If we conceive of our freedom as reasonable self-determination, then we have no sufficient justification for saying that our freedom is inconsistent with divine foreknowledge. Freedom is not arbitrariness. There is in all our actions a why for acting—a reason which decides action. The truly free person is not the uncertain, incalculable person, but the person who decides action. In other words, freedom has its laws—spiritual laws—and the omniscient God knows what these laws are. Even having said this, I admit that there is an element of mystery that remains, but that mystery in no way gives a warrant to deny God’s exhaustive foreknowledge or our self-determination. In fact, where Arminian, open theist, or Calvinist, we must recognize that on the one hand God command all men to repent, yet we know if He has predestined repentance, why would He ask? Here we see the two wills of God, discretive and perceptive, much like our own two wills, where we want something, yet we want something else even more, forestalling the lesser desire for the sake of the greater desire. As Piper argues, this is the same for God:
“God wills not to save all, even though he is willing to save all, because there is something else that he wills more, which would be lost if he exerted his sovereign power to save all. This is the solution that I as a Calvinist affirm with Arminians. Both Calvinists and Arminians affirm two wills in God when they ponder deeply 1 Timothy 2:4. Both can say that God wills for all to be saved. But when queried why all are not saved both Calvinist and Arminian answer that God is committed to something even more valuable than saving all.
The difference between Calvinists and Arminians lies not in whether there are two wills in God, but in what they say this higher commitment it. What does God will more than saving all? The answer given by Arminians is that human self-determination and the possible resulting love relationship are more valuable than saving all people by sovereign, efficacious grace. The answer given by Calvinists is that the greater value is the manifestation of the full range of God’s glory in wrath and mercy (Rom. 9:22-23) and the humbling of man so that he enjoys giving all the credit to God for his salvation (1 Cor. 1:29).”
Summarizing, God wants all of mankind to be saved, but He wants something else even more. What God wants more is for His glory to be fully displayed—for all of His perfections to be seen by mankind. God’s perfections include His mercy and love, but also His wrath and hatred of sin. Thus, in order for God to show the greatness of His mercy, He must also show the depths of his wrath. Paul affirmed as much when he said, “What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory” (Rom. 9:22-23). We cannot know the greatness of the mercy shown to God in salvation unless we can catch a glimpse of the fierceness of wrath that we deserve. In order to show the greatness of God’s mercy and fury, God shows mercy on some and hardens others. Hence, there is nothing in God’s decree to elect some and pass by others, that makes God unworthy of our worship, or to claim that He was wrong to predestine the elect and pass by the non-elect, before they were born.
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/ti/carroll.htm
The artical explains how your understanding of God and time and creation is flawed as creation and change are two separate ideas.
The artical explains how your understanding of God and time and creation is flawed as creation and change are two separate ideas.
patman
Active member
Maybe you'll read this one...
That has nothing to do with "time" being a thing. But just to humor you, notice on the new Jerusalem there is no night.... so that would mean no time by your thinking...
Revelation 21
22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it,[j] for the glory[k] of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations of those who are saved[l] shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.[m] 25 Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there).
But we know there is time because things happen, people enter the gates, etc etc...
Lon
Well-known member
This really surprises me.
It only seems like there are more OV people on here because the truth is powerful. So many times an untalented person armed with the truth has been able to accomplish what would have taken a nation of people spouting a lie to accomplish.
BTW, I hate to seem pesky, but it's just that I've posted this 2 times recently and had seen it posted at least 2 times in the past, and I've never seen a Settled View believer try and answer it. What's your take?:
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The article's author attempts to use quantum mechanics to disprove Principle A below:
A. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
Yet, elementary particle motion of statistical quantum mechanics, even if these motions are uncaused, are not an exception to A above.
Even Quentin Smith admits that this motion "at most tend to show that acausal laws govern the change of condition of particles, such as the change of particle x's position from q1 to q2. They [motion] state nothing about the causality or acausality of absolute beginnings, of beginnings of the existence of particles" (Smith, Q. (1988), "The Uncaused Beginning of the Universe," Philosophy of Science 55:39-57.p. 50).
Smith and others attempt a reconciliation of the defect in the quantum motion by noting that the Uncertainty Principle allows energy, particles (esp. virtual particles) to "spontaneously come into existence" for a finite brief time before they vanish again. They then claim, it is false to state that "all beginnings of existence are caused" and, thus, ". . . the crucial step in the argument to a supernatural cause of the Big Bang . . . is faulty" (ibid. pp. 50-51).
Smith and other's reliance on vacuum fluctuations is misleading. Virtual particles literally do not spring into existence from nothing. Instead the energy sealed in a vacuum spontaneously fluctuates in a manner as to convert evanescent particles that nearly immediately return to the vacuum. As noted by John Barrow, Frank Tipler, ". . . the modern picture of the quantum vacuum differs radically from the classical and everyday meaning of a vacuum-- nothing. . . . The quantum vacuum (or vacuua, as there can exist many) states . . . are defined simply as local, or global, energy minima (V'(O)= O, V"(O)>O)" (Barrow, J. and Tipler, F.J. (1986), The Cosmological Anthropic Principle. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (1986), p. 440).
The quantum vacuum's internal structure at the micro level is a flow of particles constantly forming and dissolving, all the time using the energy from the vacuum for small times of existence. Thus, while called a "vacuum" a quantum vacuum is not nothing, and the fluctuations therein are not an exception to Principle A above and God's creation of the universe ex nihilo stands.
I recommend you take this topic into other threads where the discussion of the science of the big bang is being discussed.
Philetus
New member
Nang
TOL Subscriber
This question only arises because you interpret the description of the "city" as being literal and temporal.
I believe this (Revelation Chapters 21 & 22) are descriptive of Kingdom of Heaven and eternal glory.
Do you have any thoughts about what it means for the Christian to be spiritually positioned "IN JESUS CHRIST?" Have you ever given that teaching a study?
Nang
Ask Mr. Religion
You did not answer my last two posts. A long repeat of what you have already said before is not an answer to what I stated. I'm beginning to think that you have little or no understanding of the rules of rationality; identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. In your last post is filled with fallacies, references to verses taken out of context, and misrepresentations of both sides of this debate. I will take the time to show this but I already foreknow that you will not be able to comprehend my next critique any more then you have understood the last one.
You did not answer my last two posts. A long repeat of what you have already said before is not an answer to what I stated. I'm beginning to think that you have little or no understanding of the rules of rationality; identity, non-contradiction, and excluded middle. In your last post is filled with fallacies, references to verses taken out of context, and misrepresentations of both sides of this debate. I will take the time to show this but I already foreknow that you will not be able to comprehend my next critique any more then you have understood the last one.
C. S. Lewis
"I certainly believe that to be
God is to enjoy an infinite present where nothing has
passed away and nothing is still to come. Does it follow that
we can say the same of saints and angels?
To make the life of the blessed
dead strictly timeless is inconsistent with the
resurrection of the body."
"I certainly believe that to be
God is to enjoy an infinite present where nothing has
passed away and nothing is still to come. Does it follow that
we can say the same of saints and angels?
To make the life of the blessed
dead strictly timeless is inconsistent with the
resurrection of the body."
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
I'm not for or against Open Theism, I'm still gathering facts. Maybe someone who
holds the Open View can help me with this.
I ran across this scripture today in my study: Acts 17:24-27.
Just curious how this is understood by the Open View?
thanks.
holds the Open View can help me with this.
I ran across this scripture today in my study: Acts 17:24-27.
Just curious how this is understood by the Open View?
thanks.
Lon
Well-known member
First of all, I have no problem thinking, but these are threads, so there is a need to ask for brief response. Requiring someone to cogitate might be one reason you get no answers. It becomes a guessing game of 'read my logical mind.'
I believe you'd have to be OV to see a contradiction. Remember the Matrix? "Don't worry about the vase." "What vase?" .... "The real head spinner is if you would have broken it if I had told you."
The mark of freewill here is that if it is my choice, and God tells me what I'm about to do (like deny Him 3 times).... hmmm...contradiction?
Now, you have made two faulty assumptions: 1) God doesn't influence our decisions at all (somehow I'm 'completely' free in my choices), 2) Foreknowledge equals no choice (here we are wrestling over exhaustive foreknowledge, but it is important that foreknowledge of any kind does exist, and even in a remote example, it is real knowledge and not just determinism nor predictive.
This is one point that OV repeatedly make mistakes on. No wonder you would be OV with this understanding. There is no way you could appreciate another view with this imperializing of Free-will. My observation is that the OV definition of free-will IS the difference between our respective positions. There are other issues, but this point drives a wedge in logic, theology, scripture interpretation, and application.
God 'knows' future in the definition of foreknowledge. You guys see a logical absurdity, not because you've considered the ramifications of the actual definition of foreknowledge, but because you have a very constrained definition based on free-will. This I continually, repeatedly say is wrong. It is this view on free-will that has you making sense of all the rest of your theology, and I believe it is an incorrect conception. You are equating foreknowledge with 'no free-will.' I say that first, God has foreknowledge, and yes it has limiting overtones to free-will, but free-will is not exhaustive. You are just trading exhaustive here for your definition. It is not Greek philosophy that gives understanding of foreknowledge, it is scripture.
Psa 139:1
O LORD, you examine me and know.
Psa 139:2 You know when I sit down and when I get up;
even from far away you understand my motives.
Psa 139:3 You carefully observe me when I travel or when I lie down to rest;
you are aware of everything I do.
Psa 139:4 Certainly my tongue does not frame a word
without you, O LORD, being thoroughly aware of it.
Psa 139:5 You squeeze me in from behind and in front;
you place your hand on me.
Psa 139:6 Your knowledge is beyond my comprehension;
it is so far beyond me, I am unable to fathom it.
Psa 139:7 Where can I go to escape your spirit?
Where can I flee to escape your presence?
Mat 26:34 Jesus said to him, "I tell you the truth, on this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times."
Mat 26:35 Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will never deny you." And all the disciples said the same thing.
Mat 21:1
Now when they approached Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, at the Mount of Olives, Jesus sent two disciples,
Mat 21:2 telling them, "Go to the village ahead of you. Right away you will find a donkey tied there, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me.
Mat 21:3 If anyone says anything to you, you are to say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once."
Mat 21:4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet:
Mat 21:5 "Tell the people of Zion,
'Look, your king is coming to you,
unassuming and seated on a donkey,
and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.' "
Act 2:23 this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles.
1Pe 1:1&2
From Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those temporarily residing abroad (in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia) who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ's blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure.
Joh 13:1 Just before the Passover feast, Jesus knew that his time had come to depart from this world to the Father. Having loved his own who were in the world, he now loved them to the very end.
Deu 31:21 Then when many disasters and distresses overcome them this song will testify against them, for their descendants will not forget it. I know the intentions they have in mind today, even before I bring them to the land I have promised."
Rom 8:29 because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.
Ecc 6:10 Whatever has happened was foreordained,
and what happens to a person was also foreknown.
It is useless for him to argue with God about his fate
because God is more powerful than he is.
(Ecclesiastes gives a very clear picture here of what this foreknowledge entails)
- Status