ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

[Ask Mr. Religion]

From the Calvinist point of view, what I said is correct. They believe in double predestination. Calvinist theology holds that, since before the foundations of the earth were laid, God decreed A would go to hell and B would go to heaven.

They also believe the God preordained whatsoever comes to pass. That includes everything anybody would say/do/think/feel. R.C. Sproul in his book, "Chosen by God" explains in detail the Calvinistic theology. I have paraphrased but the meaning is identical.

One must be precise on these matters. Search for any of my posts containing the words supralapsarian and infralapsarian. Your generalizations of God's decree are incorrect.

 

[RobE]

From the Calvinist point of view, what I said is correct. They believe in double predestination. Calvinist theology holds that, since before the foundations of the earth were laid, God decreed A would go to hell and B would go to heaven.

They also believe the God preordained whatsoever comes to pass. That includes everything anybody would say/do/think/feel. R.C. Sproul in his book, "Chosen by God" explains in detail the Calvinistic theology. I have paraphrased but the meaning is identical.

Certainly God decreed creation. "In the beginning, God created......"

Are those who go to hell equally created with those who don't - the wheat and tares?

Without God's decree none of us would exist. So I'll repeat myself....

When God created He knew that 'A' would go to hell and 'B' would go to heaven. Should God have avoided creating for the sake of 'A' and denied 'B' his place in paradise?​

Would Judas Iscariot's nature allow him to do otherwise than what he did? The limiting factor here wasn't God's foreknowledge - it was the will of the man and therefore a 'free' act.

 

[Aimey]

Robe,

am I understanding you correctly in that you beleive that

1.God DOES know the future.
2.He did not predestine certain men for damnation.
3.Men have freewill to pursue submission to Him vs rebellion.
and possibly..........
4.God is able to participate in time with men.

the last is my own assertion based on the thought line your post inspired in me.

 

[CabinetMaker]

One must be precise on these matters. Search for any of my posts containing the words supralapsarian and infralapsarian. Your generalizations of God's decree are incorrect.

They are not mine. They are R. C. Sproul's.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Certainly God decreed creation. "In the beginning, God created......"

Are those who go to hell equally created with those who don't - the wheat and tares?

Without God's decree none of us would exist. So I'll repeat myself....

When God created He knew that 'A' would go to hell and 'B' would go to heaven. Should God have avoided creating for the sake of 'A' and denied 'B' his place in paradise?​

Would Judas Iscariot's nature allow him to do otherwise than what he did? The limiting factor here wasn't God's foreknowledge - it was the will of the man and therefore a 'free' act.

I will let AMR or Nang answer for the Calvinist view point.

The wheat and the tares are created equally. They were created with free will, the ability to against God's will. That is not to say they were created to sin. They were created with the ability to sin with God's full knowledge that they would sin. God understands His created beings far better than we understand ourselves.

God created us with the ability to sin. God also created a way to salvation for us.

 

[Clete]

I will let AMR or Nang answer for the Calvinist view point.

The wheat and the tares are created equally. They were created with free will, the ability to against God's will. That is not to say they were created to sin. They were created with the ability to sin with God's full knowledge that they would sin. God understands His created beings far better than we understand ourselves.

God created us with the ability to sin. God also created a way to salvation for us.

CabinetMaker,

Given what you said above, I wonder how you would respond to the following argument?

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source​

 

[CabinetMaker]

CabinetMaker,

Given what you said above, I wonder how you would respond to the following argument?

Basic Argument for Theological Fatalism

(1) Yesterday God infallibly believed T. [Supposition of infallible foreknowledge]
(2) If E occurred in the past, it is now-necessary that E occurred then. [Principle of the Necessity of the Past]
(3) It is now-necessary that yesterday God believed T. [1, 2]
(4) Necessarily, if yesterday God believed T, then T. [Definition of "infallibility"]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of "necessary"]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9]
source​

I do not think that it represents Calvinist theology. Calvinist theology says something like God preordained you would answer the phone tomorrow at 9am. God preordained that you would say hello in sleepy tone of voice and that you would be talking to the school about missing homework. No other options exist. The Calvinist God does not do anything based on the past. He laid out every detail before ever putting clay on His wheel.

I hope that answered the question you intended to ask. If not, smack me up the side of my head and ask again!

 

[Clete]

I do not think that it represents Calvinist theology. Calvinist theology says something like God preordained you would answer the phone tomorrow at 9am. God preordained that you would say hello in sleepy tone of voice and that you would be talking to the school about missing homework. No other options exist. The Calvinist God does not do anything based on the past. He laid out every detail before ever putting clay on His wheel.

I hope that answered the question you intended to ask. If not, smack me up the side of my head and ask again!

No, that wasn't the question I was asking. SMACK! :Clete:

The argument has to do with proving that Divine Foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. You suggested otherwise when you said, "They were created with the ability to sin with God's full knowledge that they would sin.", which, as you've correctly pointed out, is not the Calvinist position but rather the Arminian one.

How would you, as an Arminian (or if not an Arminian, one who holds to the idea of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge (EDF)) respond to the argument?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[godrulz]

"Significant others?" Odd choice of words, for the term is used to denote persons living together who are not legally joined in marriage. You know, like . . .fornicators!


Do you really think God Almighty compartmentalizes His consciousness; switching it on and off; going back and forth between knowing all and knowing nothing?

Significant others with a say-so means our wills are a factor in the universe. When I use my mind and will to type this post, I bring in a creative reality that did not exist before. We are in the image of God. We are not insignificant specks in an impersonal universe. This is the language of Open Theism and fully consistent with your Reformed friend, Francis Schaeffer, whom I am reading now (complete works...how civil of me). Just because it can be used in a slangy way does not negate its more precise theological/anthropological meaning. You are nit picking, Fang...er Nang.

Omnipotence in both our views does not mean God always exercises all the power He has all the time. He is not now creating another earth with another Adam and Eve. He could, being omnipotent, but He is not. Just because He rested on the 7th day of creation week does not mean He was less omnipotent on that day compared to the other active days. Just because He could kill Hitler before he killed Jews (omnipotence) does not mean that He exercised it on that occasion. He could have created us with 3 eyes and 4 ears, but He did not. He is still omnipotent. You are nit picking, Fang. He also cannot do self-contradictory things like make 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time. This is not a limitation of omnipotence, but a logical absurdity.

 

[CabinetMaker]

No, that wasn't the question I was asking. SMACK! :Clete:

The argument has to do with proving that Divine Foreknowledge and free will are incompatible. You suggested otherwise when you said, "They were created with the ability to sin with God's full knowledge that they would sin.", which, as you've correctly pointed out, is not the Calvinist position but rather the Arminian one.

How would you, as an Arminian (or if not an Arminian, one who holds to the idea of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge (EDF)) respond to the argument?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Let me warn you, I am and engineer and a bit of a geek. I my own personal attempts to understand what God might be like, I have some rather unconventional ideas. These are my own thoughts that in my human frailty, help me to understand that which I am incapable of understanding.

God exists in n+1 dimensions. For instance if we were 2-D living on a sheet of paper, God would be 3-D we would still see that part of Him that is in 2-D (Jesus) but there is an extra dimension that allows Him to pass through the crack of a door that 2-D people could never pass through.

As it stands, we exist in at least 4 dimensions, X, Y, Z and t (time). God exists in at least 5 dimensions. Now, it is mathematically provable that there are at least 13 orthogonal dimension in existence. The means God exists in at least 14 dimensions. Each dimension is orthogonal to every other dimension. Orthogonal means right angle. X, Y and Z are easy. We've all seen it in geometry class. X and Y are a sheet of paper and Z comes straight up out of the paper. Can you envision 13 orthogonal dimensions? Our minds have no way to grasp it even though it can be proven mathematically.

So what does all that mean? God is not bound by the same laws that bind us. Time spreads out before God the way a newspaper spreads out before us. He can see time in a way that we cannot. He can move around in time in ways we cannot. He can influence time in ways cannot. I do not understand exhaustive foreknowledge but I think God can see our decisions before we make them. He can and does influence those decisions such are hardening Pharaohs heart. He causes births when it is required. But we are free moral agents by God's design. We are free to make our choices. God's statements of what He will do do not require our participation. He will do what He has said despite our best efforts to help or hinder Him.

God is sovereign but with no need to pre-plan every detail of creation before creating it. God is in control but I think that means different things at different places. For instance, God is in control of our lives only after we surrender or life to Him. The weather is under God's control but I think God set up rules by which weather operates and it follows those rules. We just have no idea what those rules are.

Any way, that is a terrible attempt to put God into terms I can understand. I don't understand everything that is God, but I trust Him none the less. I trust Him to be loving and just and even full of wrath when required.

Questions?

 

[Clete]

So you simply accept it, blindly as it were. As an antinomy perhaps, yes?

 

[CabinetMaker]

So you simply accept it, blindly as it were. As an antinomy perhaps, yes?

Yes, possibly. It is part of walking by faith. I cannot prove anything about God, I can only trust that what He says is true even when it appears to be a contradiction.

 

[Nang]

Significant others with a say-so means our wills are a factor in the universe.

This is absolutely incorrect and Scripturally unsupportable.

When I use my mind

Given to you by God .. .

and will to type this post,

with the physical and mental abilities given to you by God . . .

I bring in a creative reality that did not exist before.

That is quite a claim!

You, a mortal, by the exercise of the moral agency given to you by God, are capable of creating a reality not already created by God?

Wow?

You are nit picking, Fang...er Nang.

Yeah, sure.

Omnipotence in both our views does not mean God always exercises all the power He has all the time.

Well, then, your definition of omnipotence is screwy.

He is not now creating another earth with another Adam and Eve. He could, being omnipotent, but He is not. Just because He rested on the 7th day of creation week does not mean He was less omnipotent on that day compared to the other active days. Just because He could kill Hitler before he killed Jews (omnipotence) does not mean that He exercised it on that occasion. He could have created us with 3 eyes and 4 ears, but He did not. He is still omnipotent. You are nit picking, Fang. He also cannot do self-contradictory things like make 2+2=4 and 5 at the same time. This is not a limitation of omnipotence, but a logical absurdity.

I recommend one Advil with one dose of 25 mg. Valium.

Hope you feel better tomorrow . . .

Nang

 

[Clete]

Yes, possibly. It is part of walking by faith. I cannot prove anything about God, I can only trust that what He says is true even when it appears to be a contradiction.

If you are willing to live with contradiction, how do you know what to trust? You say that you can only trust what He says but how do you know what He says if you ignore contradiction? Someone says that the Bible teaches one thing, someone else say it teaches the opposite. How are we to tell who is right and who isn't if contradiction doesn't falsify a truth claim? In fact, if contradiction doesn't falsify a truth claim, what does?

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[CabinetMaker]

If you are willing to live with contradiction, how do you know what to trust? You say that you can only trust what He says but how do you know what He says if you ignore contradiction? Someone says that the Bible teaches one thing, someone else say it teaches the opposite. How are we to tell who is right and who isn't if contradiction doesn't falsify a truth claim? In fact, if contradiction doesn't falsify a truth claim, what does?

Resting in Him,
Clete

I said, "I can only trust that what He says is true even when it appears to be a contradiction."

Appears is the key word. Many times we have atheists posting things that say this contradicts that. Usually it is something taken out of context by them to prove a pet point of their own making. Sometimes it requires a little bit more digging to understand what is going on which ultimately reveals the contradiction is nothing more than a lack of understanding.

That is the case here. I lack a complete understanding of how God can have precise foreknowledge while we have free will. It is a lack of understanding by me, not a contradiction in God. I honestly believe it is because God is not bound by time the way we are. He has a perspective that we are utterly unable to grasp. Our reference frame is just to limited.

It would be like going back to give Moses a GPS to help him through the desert and trying to explain to him how it worked. Moses would utterly lack any of the knowledge that would help him truly understand how that fairly simple device works. Moses frame of reference is to limited.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

One must be precise on these matters. Search for any of my posts containing the words supralapsarian and infralapsarian. Your generalizations of God's decree are incorrect.

They are not mine. They are R. C. Sproul's.

Oh, but they are your words, not Sproul's. You stated you are paraphrasing Sproul, but what you are actually doing is insulting the man via your significantly impaired memory.

Please pick up the book (mine is the 1986 paperback version) again, and turn to page 142 and 143. After a careful reading you will discover that the Reformed view is not one of equal ultimacy. Sproul very clearly and explicitly distinguishes between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Even has a nice little table with two columns so you can figure it out.

 

[Nang]

Sproul very clearly and explicitly distinguishes between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Even has a nice little table with two columns so you can figure it out.

Nang is not very fond of Sproul, for such reason.

He cuddles with the RCC but insults the Supras as being extreme?

Why?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Oh, but they are your words, not Sproul's. You stated you are paraphrasing Sproul, but what you are actually doing is insulting the man via your significantly impaired memory.

Please pick up the book (mine is the 1986 paperback version) again, and turn to page 142 and 143. After a careful reading you will discover that the Reformed view is not one of equal ultimacy. Sproul very clearly and explicitly distinguishes between Calvinism and hyper-Calvinism. Even has a nice little table with two columns so you can figure it out.

It is Sproul's strawman because he is uncomfortable with double predestination. All men are drowning in a lake of sin. God is in a boat that can hold everybody. As God passes through the lake He picks some people out and leaves others. How is that not double predestination? God chooses who will live. By not choosing others to life He has chosen them to damnation. They cannot save themselves.

You cannot have it both ways. Face your faith like a man, both the good and the bad. God has predestined everybody or He hasn't. God has ordained everything or He hasn't. Calvinism allows no other alternative. Remember, the Westminster Confession that you hold to be true states clearly that God unchangeably ordained whatsoever comes to pass. Did He or didn't He?

Edit - You are correct that Sproul does not claim to believe in double predestination. My bad.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Nang is not very fond of Sproul, for such reason.

He cuddles with the RCC but insults the Supras as being extreme?

Why?

I don't know why. Perhaps he likes the company he keeps.:think:

 

[godrulz]

Nang: I think you have Ostrich syndrome. Your theology does not resonate with reality. It is indefensible.