ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Clete]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

Clete, Post #578--Okay, you say 2Sam 24 means exactly what it says:

It says, the anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel "and He moved David against them to say, "go number Israel..." Then in verses 12-15, it says that God brought judgement upon David for doing so.

Now you tell me what it means. Reconcile it with OVers often stated belief that if God executes His will through deeds of the wicked or were in anyway involved, it would make Him guilty of sin. Go ahead.

We can continue only under the following conditions.

1. You apologize and openly admit that your attacks where not only unfounded but that they were intended to do nothing but malicious harm to both me and my family.

2. You reread my post and respond to what I actually said in a very calm, thoughtful, and coherent way.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Hi Clete,

First of all, thank you for being willing to show your frustration. Your candor and honesty are truly appreciated. Secondly, I just want to thank you for trying. I really mean that. Not only that, but you’ve hung in there through some of my most scathing and mocking posts, and I think that it quite commendable and speaks well of your character. I say that with all earnest; I’m not just trying to butter you up. I’m sure anyone who has watched our exchanges would agree.

Clete writes:You keep saying that you have already stipulated that God would not have to end all the evil in the world to which my response should be intuitive based upon what I've already said.

I wish that were the case, Clete. You don’t have to answer if you don’t want. But please find someone who can. This is an honest inquiry; not an attempt to refute or discredit anyone. I just want to know why God would not selectively intervene, secretly, for the sole purpose of bettering His odds of saving more people.

Clete writes: Yes God would have to stop it all for this world we live in to make any sense at all ...

Why? He’s God, Clete! Couldn't He do this if He wanted, without overriding anyone’s freewill, without causing people to turn away because of an obvious miracle? You haven’t proven your claim, either by logic or by scripture, that it’s an all or nothing proposition. Help me to see it as you do.

Clete writes: ... and even if (hypothetically speaking) He did somehow find a way to stop only the worst of it then we wouldn't be able to tell that He had, ...

We would not supposed to be able to tell, Clete! That’s the meaning of the word “secretly”! The question is, if the Open View God wants all people to be saved, why wouldn’t God do this? What logical or scriptural reason precludes Him taking any secret action?

Clete writes: If you feel like I am not answering the questions that you are asking then perhaps you shouldn't ask questions that are obviously leading without giving some indication of where you intend to take them.

There’s nothing wrong with leading questions, Clete. We all do it. In this case, I really do want to know the answer so I can better understand Open View thought on this matter. Will I probably use it against you and other Open Theists? I might. I might not. You used to be a Calvinist. Something convinced you to change. Could this be what convinces me to change? And frankly, there are some points to the Open View that I can’t use in my efforts to refute the view; this could be one of them.

Clete writes:In other words, why the crap does it matter whether or not God intervenes to stop terrorist attacks?

It matters because the consistency of the Open View seems to be at stake. If the Open View God wants all people to be saved, wouldn’t the Open View expect God to do whatever He can, within the Open View limitations, to better His odds? I’m trying to work within those limitations to understand your view.

Clete writes:You want to know whether God intervening to stop 9-11 would fit in my theological worldview. NO, it wouldn't.

Why?

Clete writes:But that's sort of the obvious answer isn't it?

Sure, but the rationale isn’t obvious. That’s what I’m exploring.

Clete writes:God obviously didn't intervene to stop 9-11 because it did happen.

Right, but it’s a good example because it did happen. If you want to say that God did actually intervene secretly and prevented it from being even worse, that's fine. It would be an admission that God did do something to secretly intervene.

Clete writes:You indicated that it doesn't fit into your theology either, so we are in agreement, right?

We are in agreement regarding God’s non-intervention, but it makes sense in my view. It doesn’t seem to make sense in yours -- yet. I’m hoping you can help me to make sense of it according to the tenets of the Open View.

Jim wrote: But it seems to me that it is your view that makes God out to be a game-player. On the Open View, He sits idly by and watches as thousands of people plunge into hell, when He could have prolonged a few of those lives in the hope that they might later believe in Him. But because of certain rules of the Open View game, He won't lift a finger. Please help me to better understand this.

Clete writes:You feel that this is not only an effective method of debate but an effective manner of instruction as well.

Clete, it’s really not a strategy or some arcane method of instruction. I have many friends who have not been exposed to the Open View. They’ve asked me questions like this about the Open View, and I can’t answer them. I’ve read four books on the subject and I’ve gotten no clear answer on this kind of issue. I’ve personally debated Greg Boyd and others who are well-versed in this theology, and I’m still looking for an answer.

Clete writes:I'm just saying that I am not your student and I resent having to attempt to read your mind in order to figure out where you're going with a line of questioning.

You don't have to read my mind or even try to. It only gets us into trouble when we do stuff like that anyway. I just answer questions as they're thrown at me, without trying to read between the lines. Whenever I've tried to divine someone's intent behind a question, I've always gotten into trouble. Clete, I’ve been as forthright as I can be. I assure you that I am not being underhanded or conniving in my question.

Clete writes:We really do need to figure out a better way for the two of us to communicate!

Perhaps we should chat on the phone sometime. Knight and I had an enjoyable conversation. He’s only the second Open Theist I’ve ever actually talked to outside of an internet forum. You might be the third.

Most sincerely,
Jim

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

G. I. T.--No Clete doesn't know what he is talking about because he grossly misrepresents Reformed doctrine; but, of course, since you are an enemy of those truths, you gladly take the word of the ill-informed who misrepresent as the straight skinny on the issue.

most calvinists i know agree with what Clete has said.

Originally posted by Turbo
Last year at this time, G_I_T rejected the Open View.

yep. and then i began to read the bible for myself and redevelop my views accordingly. not completely finished with that process yet either. maybe it will never be done completely though

 

[Big Finn]

Listen. LISTEN!! Are you there, ALL there? IT IS NOT OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF GOD'S CHARACTER TO EXECUTE JUDGEMENT ON THE WICKED BY GIVING THEM UP TO THEIR OWN WAYS AND GET GLORY TO HIMSELF BY DEMONSTRATING HIS JUST WRATH AGAINST THEM.

Rolf,

You really need to stop making up straw men as you go along, or at least ask if what you are assuming is what I actually believe.

No one says that God has no right to punish wickedness. No one has ever said that on this thread.

What I have said is that it is outside the bounds of God's character for Him to create a person only to harm him. Do you understand the difference between the two? It doesn't seem that you do.

Calvinism says that God ordained sin(caused it to happen) and then on top of that God ordained that the majority of human beings are condemned, without chance of change, to be burnt forever in hell. Then Calvinism says this happens so God can glorify Himself. Now, stop and think back to the definition of selfishness that you agreed to--any action that harms another person that is only designed to make one's self look good. This is exactly what Calvinism says God is doing.

I'm not charging God with selfishness, you are, Calvinism is. You are the ones say that God would do such a thing. I deny it. I say any action like that is outside the scope of God's character and He would not act like that. So, get your facts straight as to who is charging God with what. I have no problem with God, I have a problem with the way Calvinism portrays God. These are two separate concepts. Do you understand that?

You see, Rolf, I believe that God rules in the exact manner in which He describes Himself to humans and expressed to us through the life of His Son. He says He is loving, gracious, longsuffering, just, and patient. Creating people only so He can destroy them does not fit into the character of God as He describes Himself, or in the character His Son displayed here on earth. It does not fit the description of the God I have come to know in the last 30 years either. Personal experience tells me God is not arbitrary and does not create only so He can destroy. God is the life-giver, not the life-destroyer that Calvinism pictures Him to be.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Knight

Review the following statements that I believe to represent your view based on everything you have stated on this thread..... please tell me where you disagree.

1. God decrees all things. Every action, every movement, every event for all of history has been decreed by God.

2. Therefore... every morally sinful thing that has ever happened has been decreed by God.

3. God Himself cannot do anything that is morally wrong.

I agree with all three. That's what I believe.

It seems to me the obvious logical conclusion of the above three statements is that NO morally sinful act has every occurred.

Not by God, but sinful acts have been committed by men - all the time.

Uh... Rolf... Z Man... why are you Calvinist types so incredibly rude?

What did I do???

 

[1Way]

God Is Truth - We are very happy to have you sharing (and learning) as you have! The fact that you are growing is as you said natural for all humans. But also, the fact that after all this personal investigation and open discussions, you still side with the open view shows a lot about it's biblical foundation, because you have plenty of folks ready to give you the best reasons why it is all wrong. But where are the sound biblical arguments? They are lacking. The open view is strong. Thanks for presenting a great personal example :up: of letting God's word reign authoritative even over traditional matters wherever the two seemingly contradict.

Any system of theology that fundamentally voids scripture of meaning in a doctrinal (traditional) sense, is at its foundation, false. :down: Praise God for a faith that humbly conforms to God's word.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by Z Man

I agree with all three. That's what I believe.

you do understand logic right? IF all the premises are correct, and the form is valid, then the conclusion is true. there is no way it cannot be true, that's logic. you cannot have three true premises in a valid form and deny the conclusion. to do so is logically absurd.

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Originally posted by 1Way

God Is Truth - We are very happy to have you sharing (and learning) as you have! The fact that you are growing is as you said natural for all humans. But also, the fact that after all this personal investigation and open discussions, you still side with the open view shows a lot about it's biblical foundation, because you have plenty of folks ready to give you the best reasons why it is all wrong. But where are the sound biblical arguments? They are lacking. The open view is strong. Thanks for presenting a great personal example :up: of letting God's word reign authoritative even over traditional matters wherever the two seemingly contradict.

Any system of theology that fundamentally voids scripture of meaning in a doctrinal (traditional) sense, is at its foundation, false. :down: Praise God for a faith that humbly conforms to God's word.

thank you for the kind words 1Way. i owe thanks to you, godrulz, knight, turbo, clete and all the other OVers here on TOL for helping me understand the open view and look at it openly ( no pun intended :chuckle: ); but most thanks to God for helping me look at him and his word objectively and truthfully.

God bless you all.

GIT

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

You believe that what Hitler did (for an extreme example) wasn't done because Hitler chose to do it but because Hitler was chosen (predestined) to do it.

Wrong. I believe both, that God chose Hitler and Hitler chose to do what he did.

Or even if you say that he chose to do it, you would in the same breath say that he was predestined to choose it so either way is fine with me. One way he didn't choose the other way the word choose is meaningless. Any way you slice it, his punishment for sins that he had no choice but to commit, is unjust and arbitrary.

Again, for some reason, you assume that if God ordained it, it eliviates us from responsibility. Where does the Bible teach that? No Calvinists I know believe that! The Bible teaches us that yes, God is soevereign, and yes, we are responsible. You have to accept that and stop objecting to it, as the people did to Paul's same preaching (Romans 9:18-20).

Your assumption that God only 'punishes' the 'bad' people is elementary logic. Surely Job was a righteous man in the eyes of God; David's firstborn son was killed by God, although his son had done nothing wrong; God hated Esau before he was born; God has killed several women and children that lived in nations and cities that opposed Israel; Jesus Himself was an innocent man, yet ordained by God to be 'slained' for His glory.

Are you openly saying that God is unjust? Is that really your position?

OF COURSE NOT!!!! My reason in posting about all the things God has done to people is to show just that; HE CANNOT BE CHARGED FOR EVIL OR FOR BEING UNJUST, NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES!!!

You are the one who believes that if God decrees everything, then He is unjust. But the Scriptures tell us that God has done numerous things to people, bringing about calamity and afflictions to whomever He so chooses! And there is nothing we can say to Him or to stay His hand! If He kills millions of people, as He is said of doing numerous times in the Old Testament, than He is right for doing so. If He causes David to sin, as 2 Sam 24 tells us, then holds David responsible, then He is just! God can never be unjust, no matter what He does!!!

Jesus' ability to predict the actions of Peter in no way proves or even suggests that those actions where predestined by God. If given the right circumstances and sufficient information I can predict what you will do and I don't even know you very well at all and I am certainly not as smart as God! God (Jesus) knew Peter better than He knew himself and he knew all of the people around him including the people outside the court. It simply would not have been difficult at all for God to predict and then orchestrate such an event without even thinking about overcoming anyone's free will.

Jesus just didn't 'predict', or guess; He pretty much said it was going to happen, no matter what. "Before the rooster crows, YOU WILL DENY ME three times." If Peter had free will, there is no way God could of made such a 'lucky guess'. What if Peter had choosen not to deny Christ?

As John Piper once said:

[The] absolute knowledge that Peter would sin, how often he would sin, when he would sin, and that he would repent did not remove Peter's moral responsibility in the least, which is made plain by the fact that Peter weeps bitterly precisely when he remembers the words of Jesus' prediction. Peter does not say, "Well, you predicted this sin, and so it had to take place, and so it can't have been part of my free willing, and so I am not responsible for it." He wept bitterly. He was guilty and he knew it.

Why do you cling so tightly to interpretations of Scripture that not only paint God as an arbitrary tyrant, but that are not necessary interpretations of the text?

I don't 'cling tightly' to only those passages of Scripture that you said 'paint God as an arbitrary tryant'. The only reason I bring them up so much is because you guys are convinced that us Calvinists support the notion that God is evil since He decrees such events Himself. But we both agree God cannot do evil! So, that's why I post those passages of Scripture that you have said 'paint God as an arbitrary tyrant', to prove to you that God is not evil even though He's done things that you say would make Him out to be an unjust and evil God!

Scriptures prove you wrong. God does indeed decree 'evil', or calamity, or whatever you want to call it, and yet, He can never be charged for being unjust or evil Himself!

Paul is not talking about individual people, he is speaking of nations. He was explaining how God cut off Israel and why He was justified in doing so because of their unbelief. This interpretation is not only consistent with the language and grammar of the text but it is further backed up by Paul's reference to Jer. 18 which explicitly states this point in no uncertain terms.

You do no justice to the context of Romans 9 at all. Anyone who studies it will no doubt understand that Paul is not merely talking about nations here. In fact, he starts out chapter 9 with a pause to reflect on his fellow Jews who are not saved. He mourns over their lack of PERSONAL SALVATION. Then, he proceeds to explain how God is not unrighteous, as some would claim, for not saving some Jews, even though He made a promise to them through Abraham. Paul tells us that the promise of salvation wasn't a physical one; it wasn't a promise that depended on who you were a descendant of, or what you did; it was a promise based solely on God's decree and will.

Check this out for an in-depth, contextual, honest study of Romans 9. You just might learn something...

This is simply the worst translation of this text I have ever seen. It is the most blatant example of the translators reading the theology into the text that I have ever seen. Are you sure that the Bible you're getting this from isn't a paraphrase? Look it up yourself in a lexicon or in Strong's or something. This is simply a near complete mistranslation of the Greek.

What translation do you want? They all say the same thing;

God has mercy and hardens whoever He wishes. The objection rises; "How can God hold us accountable if He ordained it to happen in the first place? If He decreed my sin, than how can I be guilty of it?" Who in the world do you think you are? How can you question God like that? You are nothing but a man!


Romans 9:18-20 (NAS)
So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God?

Romans 9:18-20 (NKJV)
Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?" But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God?

Romans 9:18-20 (NRS)
So then he has mercy on whomever he chooses, and he hardens the heart of whomever he chooses. You will say to me then, "Why then does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who indeed are you, a human being, to argue with God?

Romans 9:18-20 (GNT)
So then, God has mercy on anyone he wishes, and he makes stubborn anyone he wishes. But one of you will say to me, "If this is so, how can God find fault with anyone? Who can resist God's will?" But who are you, my friend, to talk back to God?

Romans 9:18-20 (The Message)
All we're saying is that God has the first word, initiating the action in which we play our part for good or ill. Are you going to object, "So how can God blame us for anything since he's in charge of everything? If the big decisions are already made, what say do we have in it?" Who in the world do you think you are to second-guess God? Do you for one moment suppose any of us knows enough to call God into question?



Pick your favorite. It still means the same thing...

God cannot be unjust Z Man! He can't do it! HE CAN'T DO IT. Any interpretation of the Bible you come up with that suggests otherwise is false. God cannot violate His own nature, period.

I know that Clete. I agree; God cannot be unjust. I do not present those Scriptures to prove that; I merely present them to prove otherwise. He does the very things that you believe make Him to be unjust (as you said earlier, "Why do you cling so tightly to ... Scripture that ... paint God as an arbitrary tyrant"), yet He cannot be charged with evil. We are held accountable for our own actions; we commit evil, not God.

 

[1Way]

Z Man - You quoted Clete saying

• You believe that what Hitler did (for an extreme example) wasn't done because Hitler chose to do it but because Hitler was chosen (predestined) to do it.

and then you said

• Wrong. I believe both, that God chose Hitler and Hitler chose to do what he did.

and your already undone. Here are the two options.

1. Hitler chose without God predestinating/ordaining/decreeing his choices
   
2. God predestinated/ordained/decreed his choices

It's an either or, you can not have both these being true, that is a violation of the law on non-contradiction. I realize that you believe both are true, people believe many strange and contradictory things.

Better would have been - God predestines things and man chooses things, they are both true, and in so doing, you do not contradict what Clete actually said, nor do you violate the law of non-contradiction.

Your comments about Romans 9:18-20 are an affront to logic and reason itself. None of your translations even tried to say what your one strange commentary says about "God ordaining and decreeing sin". Plus, your response was incongruent to what Clete said. He did not ask for a different translation, he said your supposed translation was terribly wrong.

 

[geralduk]

I would sugest to anyone who loves the truth fro its own sake to read calvins WHOLE 'argument' rather than a mans interpretation of it taking only that PART of it which suits his own particular thinking and theology.
He is so MISQUOTED and his 'arguments' abused that it is hardly worth getting involved in any 'arguments' thrown up by each opposing 'school' of theology.
For what is the result?
The REJECTION of the CLEAR teaching of scripture as to the SOVEREIGNTY of God and the PREDESTINATION of both the unrepentant sinner and the rightous.
Far better then to go to the SCRIPTURES FIRST without ANY recourse to calvin and be stablished in the what ALL the scriptures teach than to get ones concepts and theology second hand and from carnal men who know not the truth.
Of if you must then GO TO calvin to the SCOURCE and NOT books ABOUT calvinism.
and FOLOW HIS 'argument' from the START to the FINISH. WITHOUT JUMPING to CONCLUSIONS in the middel!
For if you do that and are willing to be LED by his 'argument' and ABOBE ALL by the HOLY SPIRIT then if his 'argument' is sound then you will arrive ate the SAME conclusions that he did.
if you are NOT willign to do that.
then be WILLING to be LED into ALL truth by HIM who was promised by God to do so.
But if you are only willing to be led by MEN then you will NOT arrive at" a knowledge of the truth" either BY CALVIN OR BY ANY OTHER.
For it is them who are LED by the HOLY SPIRIT who are the SONS OF GOD.
and if you are not willing then ye "are YET CARNAL"! AND IF SO cannot RECIVE the things of God in your mind seeing that it is "at emnity with God"!
Therefore we are to be "TRANSFORMED by the renewal of our minds" till we all come to a untiy of THE faith" and seeign that faith does not come save by the understanding of the WORD of God.
Then it is clear to have a unity of THE faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints we must all under God come to a UNTIY OF UNDERSTANDING where we ALL (if His ) think the same thing!
Now the church has up to now REDUCED the gospel to the VERY BASIC level for the sake of 'peace' which is no peace at all.
and that of being BORNagain.
because it has disobeyed God and unbelieveing even as they who failed to enter into the promise land.
It must be so or else there would be more TRUE agreement BETWEN BRETHEREN seeing that if they WERE LED by the self same SPIRIT that raised up CHRIST JESUS from the dead and were in truth and DEED" ALIVE unto God" then they would RECOGNISE the truth by the SPIRIT of truth that is in them.
and whom the FOLOW!
"fOR mY SHEEP know my voice and will NOT FOLOW ANOTHER"!
IF THEN WE boast in being Christians and some of being the "ELECT" then are we not to have the "mind of CHRIST"?
AND TO "make our election sure"?
How then do we know not the truth and say we are the elect of God!?
Then it must be as PAUL says of some which were CHRISTIANS "ye are yet CARNAL"!
NEEDIGN YET TO BE TAUGHT(the BASICS) when ye should be teachers.
For the church has reduced the gospel to a level where what PAUL calls CARNAL we call SPIRITUAL! and what PAUL calls the MILK of the Word the church in the main has made the MAIN COURSE!the be all and end all of our salvation!
When in truth it is being BORN..............again.
and did he not then say we are to "GO ON TO PERFECTION!"?
and from John to GROW in grace and in the knowldge of Him so that from beign BORNagain we are to go on to "little children" to YOUNG MEN" and on to maturity?
How can we say we are mature Christians if JOHN says that the YOUNG MEN have "overcome the wicked one" when we have not doen so?
But if we are CONTETIOS and more used to STRIFE and vain debate then we are in truth CARNAL and walk after the flesh.
and albeit we may perchance be BORNagain yet if we ALOW OURSELVES to eb caught up in these interminable debates that profit NO ONE least of all those who propagate them.
Then we will MISS the rapture and the "high calling" to which we are called.
and dont say Gods will be done.
It was GODS WILL that ADAM and EVE not die and NOT to eat of that tree WHICH gOD FORBADE THEM .
neverthe less they did so.
and they FAILED .
and it was GODS WILL that those who He SAVED out of EGYPT shoukld ENTER into the promised land for which they were "aprehended for"
Nevertheless THEY DID NOT!
WHY?
Paul says "because of thier unbelief"
Yet read the scriptures......

Was it that they BELIEVED NOTHING?
no!
Butr that they beleived the WRONG MESSAGE!
and so FOLOWED the WRONG PEOPLE.
WHO WALKED after the FLESH and not after the spirit.
Who saw things only from the CARNAL mind and not with the eye of faith.
Therefore Calvinism argh!!!!!!!!!!
Id say not so much calvinsim but more those who folow teachers who match thier own ideas rather than they who adhere to the WORD OF GOD in its purity and PERFECTION.
TRUE it is then you could go argghh when there is so much interminable vain debate.
But never about the truths of Gods word.

 

[Hilston]

Geralduk,

Apparently, the OVers are not really interested in what Calvin taught, not even for the sake of criticizing him. They are more interested in what YOU believe, even if it misrepresents Calvinism. They are not interested in debating the views of a dead guy. They're more interested in debating the views of living people, even if the views of those people misrepresent the view they claim to espouse.

The problem with that is manifold: For one thing, they end up walking around with a distorted view of Calvinism. Furthermore, every time they meet someone who claims to be a Calvinist, they accuse him of believing in accordance with the distorted caricature of Calvinist they debated previously. That's why those who do understand Calvinism (as a system of thought, not as a dead guy's religion) are frustrated by both the misunderstanding and the misrepresentation by the self-styled "Calvinists" making claims and arguments that Calvin and the reformers did not and would not make.

While I appreciate your admonishment to the contrarians to be "led" by the Spirit and to be convinced by what "all" the scriptures say, I think this is a naive perspective. What must be understood about Open Theism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Covenantalism, Dispensationalism and all the various Isms is that these theologies are borne out of non-negotiable presuppositions held tenaciously by their adherents. The dirty secret is that, despite each "ism" claiming to put scripture first, they actually put their presupposition first, and then understand scripture in light of their presuppositions. That is why quoting the very same scripture yields two completely contradictory views. Is that the fault of scripture? God forbid. It is the result of differing presuppositions.

The non-negotiable presuppositions of Open Theism seem to be that:
-- God cannot have anything whatsoever to do with evil and still be a good God
-- exhaustive predestination and choice (as an expression of desire/preference) are mutually exclusive
-- predestination equals causality

There may be more. I'm a bit foggy right now.

The scriptures are then used to prove their case. I do the same thing. We all do. What is remarkable about the Open View is how often passages that employ figurative language are exploited as prooftexts. Faulty presuppositions must change in order for the scripture to mean something other than what they presently mean to an Open Theist.

Jim
What is the significance of "40 days" in scripture?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Hilston

Geralduk,

Apparently, the OVers are not really interested in what Calvin taught, not even for the sake of criticizing him.

Jim... Calvin isn't a registered TOL member as far as I know.

Us OVers are debating Z Man, boogerhead, Rolf... you etc.

We are debating your representation of Calvinism.

Determining who's view of Calvinism is more inline with John Calvin's teachings is another argument all together.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Z Man affirms the following three statements.....


1. God decrees all things. Every action, every movement, every event for all of history has been decreed by God.

2. Therefore... every morally sinful thing that has ever happened has been decreed by God.

3. God Himself cannot do anything that is morally wrong.

Originally posted by Z Man

I agree with all three. That's what I believe.

What more needs to be said?

 

[God_Is_Truth]

Z Man,

you seem to not understand logic very well including the law of non contradiction. you also seem to not understand how justice works either. your theology is full of contradictions and every time one is pointed out all you say is "it's what scripture teaches". every time someone points out that your theology makes God unjust you say "God can't be unjust! he just cant! he's God!" until you start conforming your theology to the rules of logic and understand better what justice is, i don't see how we can get anywhere in these debates.

God bless.

GIT

 

[1Way]

Hilston - post 1 of 2

As to your post to Geralduk which contains many issues concerning the open view.

Thanks for suggesting that all these different ism's are not necessarily the product of being in the flesh, i.e. being unspiritual, verses being human and having a limited amount of understanding, and specifically having however many errant presuppositions, which is certainly rampant throughout all of Christianity. The comprehensive nature of such a statement is in my opinion, very humbling for all of us, thanks what I think is a rare but accurate assessment.

And I thank you and am grateful for you helping Knight see how you are different than what others may see in you. I hope you may learn the same of us as well, to everyone's encouragement.

I'd like to clarify some things. You said

(1) The non-negotiable presuppositions of Open Theism seem to be that:
(2) -- God cannot have anything whatsoever to do with evil and still be a good God
(3) -- exhaustive predestination and choice (as an expression of desire/preference) are mutually exclusive
(4) -- predestination equals causality

There may be more. I'm a bit foggy right now.

The scriptures are then used to prove their case. I do the same thing. We all do. (5) What is remarkable about the Open View is how often passages that employ figurative language are exploited as prooftexts. Faulty presuppositions must change in order for the scripture to mean something other than what they presently mean to an Open Theist.

Jim
(6) What is the significance of "40 days" in scripture?

(1) I think this is a slightly mistaken listing. There is but one issue that is non-negotiable with the open view. If you are an open viewer, you believe that the future holds at least some contingency or uncertainty. It takes a good deal of searching this issue out through scripture before coming to this conclusion, but after rejecting the idea that there are no contingencies or uncertainties, then open theism is the natural result.

See, that is the foundational issue, there is nothing more foundational in terms of what an open theist must affirm than that. So while I do believe that your list is high up on the list of what open theists would affirm, lets' not put the resultant in front of the primary, let's not loose track of the basic presupposition involved in OV.

(2) This is an overstatement. The issue of God and evil is one of moral separation. And frankly, this is not an open view issue, this is a morality or ethics issue. I believed this exact way before I even knew OV even existed. Pretend that moral right and wrong is a teeter totter. On one side is good, and on the other side is bad/evil. In the middle at the leverage point is God's absolute standard of righteousness, perhaps the middle is neither good nor bad, it's neutral or amoral.

• Isa 5:20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
  
  Am 5:15 Hate evil, love good; Establish justice in the gate. It may be that the LORD God of hosts Will be gracious to the remnant of Joseph.
  
  Ps 5:4 For You [are] not a God who takes pleasure in wickedness, Nor shall evil dwell with You.
  
  De 32:4 [He is] the Rock, His work [is] perfect; For all His ways [are] justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright [is] He.
  
  Zep 3:5 The LORD [is] righteous in her midst, He will do no unrighteousness. Every morning He brings His justice to light; He never fails, But the unjust knows no shame.
  
  Job 34:10 "Therefore listen to me, you men of understanding: Far be it from God [to do] wickedness, And [from] the Almighty to [commit] iniquity. 11 For He repays man according to his work, And makes man to find a reward according to his way. 12 Surely God will never do wickedly, Nor will the Almighty pervert justice.
  
  Ps 92:15 To declare that the LORD is upright; [He is] my rock, and [there is] no unrighteousness in Him.
  
  Ro 9:14 What shall we say then? [Is there] unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
  
  1Jo 1:5 This is the message which we have heard from Him and declare to you, that God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.
  
  2Ch 19:7 "Now therefore, let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take care and do [it], for [there is] no iniquity with the LORD our God, no partiality, nor taking of bribes."
  
  Ro 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? [Is] God unjust who inflicts wrath? (I speak as a man.) 6 Certainly not! For then how will God judge the world?
  7 For if the truth of God has increased through my lie to His glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner?
  8 And [why] not [say], "Let us do evil that good may come"? ——as we are slanderously reported and as some affirm that we say. Their condemnation is just.
  
  Mt 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
  16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
  
  17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
  
  18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
  
  19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
  20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
  
  Thanks goes to Obadiah from Biblical Answers for providing some of these references.

I would comment on each teaching, but Jim (if I should call you that/Hilston), I trust that you would take these wonderful bible teachings to heart and find in them the truth of the matter, how good and evil are a matter of God's absolute standard of righteousness, as such they are always mutually exclusive and should never be considered inclusive.

A practical way of seeing this principle of the exclusiveness working out, is to imagine what can be involved to separate good from evil. And the answer is simple, it is separated by a deed of response of the one to the other. When something evil happens, you either did the deed, or you can respond to the deed. Even a so called non-response to the deed, is of itself, a response. If you did the deed, then you did evil, you are evil for doing evil, there is no escaping this absolute fact. If however you respond well against evil so that you oppose it, then you have done what is right with evil. So good can come from evil through a righteous response against evil, but never by doing evil. I suggest that every good that is suggest to have somehow come from evil fits this presumption of response, same for evil somehow coming from good. To date, no one has shown me how this precept is in any way in error.

It just so happens that we open viewers have a more clear understanding of God and His ways so that such reasoning is well accepted, but if at your foundation, your morality does not even understanding that absolute right and wrong are mutually exclusive ideas, then naturally these distinctions are not going to become easily apparent.

So it is only by secondary considerations that we OV'ers seem to universally accept a very cogent understanding of absolute morality, but again, this is not remotely a direct presupposition of open theism, it's a most reasonable and I dare say accurate understanding of the very nature of good and evil.

Points 3-6 are continued in the next post...

 

[1Way]

Hilston - post 2 of 2

You said

(1) The non-negotiable presuppositions of Open Theism seem to be that:
(2) -- God cannot have anything whatsoever to do with evil and still be a good God
(3) -- exhaustive predestination and choice (as an expression of desire/preference) are mutually exclusive
(4) -- predestination equals causality

There may be more. I'm a bit foggy right now.

The scriptures are then used to prove their case. I do the same thing. We all do. (5) What is remarkable about the Open View is how often passages that employ figurative language are exploited as prooftexts. Faulty presuppositions must change in order for the scripture to mean something other than what they presently mean to an Open Theist.

Jim
(6) What is the significance of "40 days" in scripture?

(3) Let's be clear here. Exhaustive foreknowledge precludes all uncertainty or contingency, that is the unavoidable and foundational issue. You may have inferred as much by combining both issues predestination and choice, but I can state with complete sincerity and accuracy that as an open viewer, I affirm exhaustive predestination, and I think I affirm exhaustive choice, although what you mean by that is less clear.

Exhaustive predestination
I believe that God predestinated everything, He left nothing out during His predestination that involved all of His wisdom and foreknowledge as well. The difference is not if God predestined everything, God is sovereign, nothing happens without His being somehow involved, but in terms of causation and moral responsibility, unlike the Calvinists, we allow God the power and righteous ability to create a world where He is not the cause of all things, and a world where the future holds at least some contingency and uncertainty. That is a product of God's predestinatory control. God is still said to have access to all things knowable, and still have His foreknowledge of yet future things, and He still predestines things, so the only significant difference between this view and the closed theist view, is that they do not grant God as much power and authority as we do. Because we also grant that if God wanted to, He could create a world without any contingency and uncertainty, so the OV presents a God that is more capable and powerful than the closed view.

Lastly, since we allow for genuine and real free will, naturally we bend that issue around whether or not any contingency actually exists. If your world view does not include a future with at least some contingency or uncertainty, then of course you will not even consider such a location to determine if we have free will or not. So why or if we have free will, is actually a subsequent or secondary issue to the primary issue, and that is if there exists any contingency or uncertainty, of not. So again, lets not loose focus on what is primary and what is a result of what is primary.

(4) Again, this is a result of our single affirmation that at least some contingency and uncertainty actually exists. I affirm predestination as being something that God alone causes it's nature. If God says there are no contingency/uncertainty, then there are none, if He says there are at least some (perhaps a great many) contingency/uncertainty, then there are at least some. God does that, no one else. So the issue again is not, predestination equals causality, the issue is, does at least some contingency or uncertainty actually exist, or did God create a world without contingency and uncertainty.

I'm not trying to mince words or disagree for disagreement sake, this truly is what is at stake with the open view, and again, although much of what you said normally does apply, it does so not as a primary presupposition, these are secondary issues that normally follow the single precept of actual contingency or uncertainty.

The single most foundational precept of classical Calvinism and or individual predestination, is that of classic immutability. So there you have it, once you deal cogently with these two most foundational issues, you have a handle on the entire deal. Until then you are messing around with important and common or natural resultant conclusions, but still they are fully secondary issues.

I'd encourage you to go up against the strong man issue for the open view, and leave the secondary issues to be what they are, not as primary and not as important.

(5) You are stating one half of the fuller idea. I think you meant, passages that employ figurative language in some false manner are exploited as prooftexts. It's perfectly legit to use as a truth claim figurative language, as long as the figure is properly conveyed, it's still a meaning that can help prove your view.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the open view typically accepts the non-figurative meaning of a text in a more literal way as foundational evidence that our view is correct. In fact, I know of no figurative text that is typically used to prove our view, so I think you are mixing and matching your view with our view and that is not helpful. It is the non-Open Viewers who say that God does not literally change, these are figures of speech. You can not rightly judge against a view that you do not accurately understand or represent. If you inaccurately represent the view, then you are to some degree attacking a straw man.

(6) My best guess is that although you were talking to another closed theist, you meant that as a challenge against open theists. Otherwise I do not understand the questions significance. If I am correct, then I have to ask what you are talking about, what do sort of issue do you have in mind? Meaning and significance are relative ideas, you can not expect a cogent answer to an ambiguous question. A person may ask, what is the meaning of life, and the following answers can all be absolutely true.

1. That people should worship and love their creator God
2. It's an advertising hook for the latest best seller movie
3. It's a punch line in a dirty joke

Because

1. The question concerned it's self with biblical
   truth
2. The question concerned it's self with what an add is for
3. The question concerned it's self with a dirty joke

We can use this same sort of relative questioning in the bible, only with a much narrower field of issues to choose between. Please stipulate what specific issue you have in mind with your question so that a commensurate response can happen.

Blessings in the way truth and life

 

[Rolf Ernst]

Clete, Post # 621--You want me to say my "attack" was unfounded and intended only to do malicious harm to you and your family??

YOU are the one who introduced your family into this discussion--not me; and you used YOUR DAUGHTER as a foil to misrepresent God, His ways, and Reformed doctrine. That offence against your family is YOURS, not mine.

I said nothing about you OR your family. You are the one who inserted your daughter into this debate by "USING" her to make an unfounded, baseless misrepresentation of God, His ways, and Reformed doctrine.

You, in your analogy, falsely comparing your daughter to a gross distortion of Reformed doctrine and God's ways, said that you forced your daughter to stay out late and then punished her for it; then said in essence that such were the ways of God according to Calvinism.

What a dispicable misrepresentation!! And you claim to know the doctrines of Calvinism! Why? So you can unjustly work deceitfully, supposedly knowing, supposedly being an authority on Reformed doctrine and therefore (supposedly) making accurate (ha, ha) statements concerning Reformed doctrine?? If you made no profession of understanding Reformed doctrine, your gross misrepresentation might pass as mere lack of information; but having made a public, personal profession of knowing Reformed doctrine, your disgusting, deceitfully misleading analogy becomes CRIMINALLY LIBELOUS.

Compare that with the short few lines I used to ACCURATELY portray the circumstances of God's using the instrumentality of wicked men to execute his decree through them.

First, I stressed in the ANALOGY that she acted not by constraint, but of her own will; and I used Biblical phrases--she did not stay out beyond bed time because you forced her to, but of her own volition-- "in the lust of her heart." Your despicible misrepresentation maintained that--according to Calvinism-- the wicked are forced by God to do this or that. NEVER--do you hear me?--NEVER has God "made" anyone do evil. NEVER! That is only a vicious lie some of you like to make against Reformed doctrine because you cannot otherwise gather up a case against it. BUT for the sake of clarity and DIRECT comparison between your false representation of Reformed doctrine and TRUE Reformed doctine, I have the RIGHT to correct your libel by means of the same analogy you used to make it.

You know NOTHING of Calvinism. NOWHERE does Reformed doctrine say God forces ANYONE to do evil. That is only a charge you choose to make against it.

To correct your LIBELOUS misrepresentation of Reformed doctrine, I merely used the SAME analogy YOU used--your daughter. It was clear to all on this forum that you were not speaking directly of your daughter personally, or of anything that had to do with HER conduct. You were merely forming an analogy.

I am confident that others on this forum knew that I also was doing nothing more than keeping the same analogy to demonstrate to you the difference between the FALSE analogy you LIBELOUSLY made against Reformed doctrine, and the TRUE reformed understanding of God's ways in dealing with His enemies. My analogy, just as yours, had nothing to do with your daughter personally, NOR YOU or any other of your family members whom YOU charge ME with an intent to HARM with MALICIOUS intent. What absurdity!! You make this gross misrepresentation of my merely using the same analogy you used, charging ME with a MALICIOUS intent to do harm to you and your family--and YOU want ME to apologize to YOU!

I believe your REAL anger comes from the fact that the analogy I made clearly demonstrated the difference between the FALSE analogy you maliciously and LIBELOUSLY made against Reformed doctrine, and the TRUE, Biblical, and Reformed understanding of the way God uses wicked instruments in the execution of His holy, wise, and just decree.

If you callously use one of your family members in a public forum to make false charges against others by analogy, you have no right to refuse them access to the same analogy for the sake of clarity and direct comparison. After making criminally libelous misrepresentations against God, His word, and Reformed doctrine, you demanded an apology from me. My intent was without anything other than a determination to be most clear in my point. I gave no offense. Your criminally libelous misrepresentation was deceitful, an attack on God's truth AND an offense against civil discourse. But I am a man. I can stand my ground and fire back. I seek no humbling of you by demanding an apology, which you SHOULD of your own conscience offer. But I don't want one. I will win MY points on the basis of precise and accurate responses to your foolishness.

 

[1Way]

Knight - God Is Truth - I agree. The omni-decree-ist (God's directive in life) needs to void the biblical teaching that if you cause or orchestrate a moral deed, you are responsible for that deed. If it is evil, you are evil, if it is good, you are good.

We need to not violate a clear biblical teaching because of our theology. And if God's decree is not causative at all, i.e. God makes things happen, then it's all a mute point, man causes his own actions and therefore he is responsible for doing good or bad. This issue of moral correspondence is only throughout all of scripture, and my be exemplified in the following teaching.

• Mt 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
  16 "You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
  
  17 "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
  
  18 "A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
  
  19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
  20 "Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

This is a clear teaching of exclusivity and deed to agent correspondence. Good never results in evil, and evil never results in good, they are mutually exclusive, and one's morality belongs to you, the deed doer, whoever is the cause of the deed, is responsible for it and the doers morality corresponds to the deed done.

Please also see my first of two posts to Hilston for more of this issue.

This is an issue of absolute right and wrong (righteousness), and the outworking of God's absolute justice and goodness. It boggles the mind that Christians should mess up on such a basic foundational issue as this.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Rolf Ernst

your disgusting, deceitfully misleading analogy becomes CRIMINALLY LIBELOUS.

Rolf.... are you a nut in real life? :kookoo: