Interesting.
Would you say the future is closed? Or would you say the future is open (even if only open partially)?
I can explain the question better if you like but I am guessing you get the gist of what I am asking.
ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Would you say the future is closed? Or would you say the future is open (even if only open partially)?
I can explain the question better if you like but I am guessing you get the gist of what I am asking.
Jim,
The following five things are true of ducks.
They...
1. Quack
2. Waddle when they walk
3. Constantly flap their wings in flight (except when landing)
4. Spend most of their time on water
5. Migrate seasonally
If all five of these points describe you then you are a duck.
Resting in Him,
Clete
The following five things are true of ducks.
They...
1. Quack
2. Waddle when they walk
3. Constantly flap their wings in flight (except when landing)
4. Spend most of their time on water
5. Migrate seasonally
If all five of these points describe you then you are a duck.
Resting in Him,
Clete
ROTFL....
OK... now THAT was funny!! :chuckle:
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jim - I agree with Clete, how can you be a 5 point Calvinist, and not consider yourself a Calvinist?
That is the most uniquely identifying aspects of Calvinism. I realize that there are some variations on each point so that there are many subtle differences here and there, but how can you be more Calvinistic if you are already a 5 pointer?
???
That is the most uniquely identifying aspects of Calvinism. I realize that there are some variations on each point so that there are many subtle differences here and there, but how can you be more Calvinistic if you are already a 5 pointer?
???
Well, now that my Duckism has been exposed, I might as well tell you why I avoid talking about it. It's embarrassing that we Duckists are unable to come up with a handy acronym for our 5-points of Duckism. QWCSM is much harder to say than TULIP. For now we Duckists just sound it out phonetically as "Kwakism," but it sounds funny.
Please be gentle. We Duckists are sensitive about our waddling and constant wing-flapping.
Did you read what I wrote? I'm a 15-pointer, fifTEEN, 5+5+5, and therefore, not a Calvinist.
How would you know that?
1Way, as often as I point out the distortions of Calvinism presented in this forum, and as harshly as I decry the uncritical and uneducated application of the label, it comes as no surprise to me that you ask this question. This is exactly the problem I have with those who sloppily define Calvinism according to the misrepresentations they personally encounter, instead of investigating the claims of Calvinism as they are historically formulated. If one has no real interest in learning what Calvinism is (and is not), this is what happens. Apparently, you (a) think that scope of Calvinism is limited to the 5 points, and (b) are unaware that the full title of Calvin's Institutes is The Institutes of the Christian Religion. The title alone should suggest to you that it involves more than the 5 points. I have a couple of books that cover the 5 points only. Neither of them is more than 140 pages. The Institutes comprise two volumes; one is 582 pages, the other is 704 pages. That's not the only book he wrote, either. He also wrote a harmony of the Gospels, Bible commentaries, a book on the Christian life, a book on prayer, and others. So Calvinism is much, much, much, much more than the 5 points.
Here's something else you might be interested to know: The so-called "5 points of Calvinism" were preceded by, and formulated as a direct response to, the "5 points of Arminianism."
Jim
Last edited:
The word "closed" suggests a certain finality that doesn't accurately describe even a predetermined, unalterable future. The future is yet to happen, so the idea of it being "closed" is not accurate. I would say the future is infallibly and unalterably predetermined and perfectly prepared for us to experience.
Furthermore, if I understand Open Theism enough, it seems that the phrase is incomplete or misleading. The word "open" describes ... what? The theist? No. God Himself? No. It describes the future. So why wouldn't you instead call yourself an "Open Future Theist"? The "Open View" label is better.
Question: Is the future completely "open" according to Open Theism? Or only partially so?
Jim
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jim - You really are a difficult person sometimes. I do not think you are so exceptional, like I already said, and like you apparently agree, Calvinism enjoys a rather large spectrum of variation, even including neo-Calvinistic thinking. Who knows by your easy going responses, maybe you do not really hold to the five points that you said you do hold to, I'm just taking your word for the truth of the matter that you do hold to the five points. Plainly, if you take exception to any of the 5 points of TULIP, then please stipulate that instead of saying that you hold to them.
You quoted me saying
And I am not saying that TULIP is the only unique aspect of Calvinism, although I'd be hard pressed to state another aspect that is not somehow noticeably related to TULIP. Here's a fair and pertinent question.
You quoted me saying
to which you said
Anyone can doubt a claim, even a liberal, tree huggin, public school flunky can do that, who cares about that. If I am wrong and you know it, then cut to the chase and say so and why, don't drag out the general contention process any longer than need be.
- Answer: From my capacity to learn. It's simple common knowledge to anyone remotely interested in the topic.
And I am not saying that TULIP is the only unique aspect of Calvinism, although I'd be hard pressed to state another aspect that is not somehow noticeably related to TULIP. Here's a fair and pertinent question.
- If you removed all of TULIP from Calvinism, wouldn't you basically have Christianity sans the immutability stuff?
1Way
+OL remote satellite affiliate
Jim - Please forgive my answering your questions to Knight, I'm sure Knight and I believe much the same way, and some of this stuff is rather foundational and perhaps elementary. And he (or others) may well add more clarity as the case may be.
It's not "just" primary that the future is open. What is primary is God's view of the future, we primarily get the idea that the future is open from God's word and from His view on that issue, it is His view of the future that is determinant.
Practically speaking, there is only open or closed, there is no partial. (Didn't that almost sound like that little yoda guy? Do or do not, there is no try, only do) The balancing point for that debate is not over quantity, but quality or kind. The protagonist assumption is the defining one, and that is that the future holds no contingency or uncertainty. Lets call that view A, conversely, the open view is non-A. So any contingency or uncertainty will do. But that is just for starters, after taking more of the bible into account on this issue, I believe that the nature of freedom in relationships is the clearest guide for just how much the future is open. I believe that all persons have free will, and as such are constantly establishing uncertainty and contingency.
Is anything closed to contingency in the OV
I believe that all of God's plans that are fully based upon God and His character alone, will certainly happen. Lets take salvation for example. God created this world with man in mind, He willingly died for us so that we might live with Him in a loving and righteous relationship forever. So I see nothing but confidence that He will save us just as He said He would, because of who God is, and because of how that entire issue rests upon the nature and being of God. Thus the certainty of the completion of our great salvation is based in who God is, namely, He is eternal and faithful and loving and true.
It's not "just" primary that the future is open. What is primary is God's view of the future, we primarily get the idea that the future is open from God's word and from His view on that issue, it is His view of the future that is determinant.
Practically speaking, there is only open or closed, there is no partial. (Didn't that almost sound like that little yoda guy? Do or do not, there is no try, only do) The balancing point for that debate is not over quantity, but quality or kind. The protagonist assumption is the defining one, and that is that the future holds no contingency or uncertainty. Lets call that view A, conversely, the open view is non-A. So any contingency or uncertainty will do. But that is just for starters, after taking more of the bible into account on this issue, I believe that the nature of freedom in relationships is the clearest guide for just how much the future is open. I believe that all persons have free will, and as such are constantly establishing uncertainty and contingency.
Is anything closed to contingency in the OV
I believe that all of God's plans that are fully based upon God and His character alone, will certainly happen. Lets take salvation for example. God created this world with man in mind, He willingly died for us so that we might live with Him in a loving and righteous relationship forever. So I see nothing but confidence that He will save us just as He said He would, because of who God is, and because of how that entire issue rests upon the nature and being of God. Thus the certainty of the completion of our great salvation is based in who God is, namely, He is eternal and faithful and loving and true.
I'm sure there are people who are familiar with your methods of discussion who read this statement and just scratch their heads. Who is the one who doesn't respond to questions others ask multiple times? You, 1Way. Who is the one who requires others to quote entire posts before responding to questions? You, 1Way. Who is the one who is quick to remind others when they did not respond to a question? You, 1Way. Who is the one who reminds others of posts that have not yet been replied to? You, 1Way. And despite these difficulties you impose on other, I am STILL awaiting your response to several questions that I've asked three times (in another thread).
I take exception to their non-specificity. There are 15 points. Dordt missed all 15 by not recognizing the distinctive households of God's elect.
Jim then asked: How would you know that?
It's a sincere question, 1Way. How would you know? How did you come to your understanding of Calvinism? By studying the writings of Calvin? By reading the debates of the Reformation?
You are wrong, and I gave sufficient evidence to prove my case, as I have been all along. Here's even further proof: I learned the hard way not to use the term "Calvinism" to describe myself or that portion of my beliefs that are Calvinistic, especially to Calvinists. Why? Because of a whole pile of beliefs that go along with the label that do not apply to me. Do you not have the same objection to being called an Arminian? Why the double standard?
No, it is a simplistic assumption to those who are only remotely interested in the topic. This is evidenced repeatedly in this forum.
That's exactly the response I've come to expect.
Shall I list them?
The question is neither fair, nor pertinent, and it seems to betray a certain theological naivete that is so typical in christendom today. Do you view theology as so compartmentalized that you can just insert or remove doctrinal tenets like plug 'n' play components in a laptop? Theology is to be systematized. That is the biblical model. As a system of theology, you cannot simply remove certain portions and expect the rest of it to hold together.
Here's a fair and pertinent question: Are you willing to be called an Arminian? If not, why? [Please don't just say, "Because Arminianism is too Calvinistic." Please be specific].
If you see nothing but confidence that He will save you, then isn't is true that you're a "Partial-closed Theist"?
What would be an example of a plan of God that is NOT based on His character alone?
If the entire issue of God's promise of salvation rests upon the nature and being of God, please explain how God's promise to bless, plant and build the nation of Israel does NOT rest upon the nature and being of God. I ask this because, if He threatened to repent of the latter, how do you know He will not repent of the former?
Should I then take it that the completion of God's blessing, building and planting of the nation of Israel is NOT based in who God is?
Last edited:
I, as an Open Theist, would would object to being called an Arminian because I beleive the future is open and Arminians do not. Thus Arminians deny the very point of theology that defines Open Theism and conversely I deny foundational beliefs of the Arminian (Exhaustive foreknowledge). I therefore am not an Arminian.
Can you say something similar about what you believe verses what Calvinism teaches? If so, please do so. Please be specific.
Resting in Him,
Clete
I've already said, Calvinism teaches 5 points of anti-Arminianism. I teach there are 15. If that isn't convincing enough for you, there is the Calvinistic view of theonomy, the Calvinistic view church government, the Calvinistic view of eschatology, the Calvinistic view of soteriology. Would you like me to be more specific than that?
Jim
Yes I would. You see, I'm just not convinced yet that the differences you claim aren't anything more than semantic in nature. I could be wrong but based on previous experience with you, I doubt it.
Please list all 15 of your "points". That should be sufficient to demonstrate whether there is a substantive difference between what you believe and standard Calvinist doctrine.
Resting in Him,
Clete
P.S. I do not mean to imply that you must consider yourself a Calvinist. If you don't like that label because you feel like the difference in what you believe is significantly different then that's terrific and is perfectly fine with me. My point is simply that for purposes of discussion or debate labels make communication very much easier and if you are going to make it difficult for everyone then it would be nice to know that there is a substantive reason for it. After all, if the exact same arguments used against Calvinism are used without modification against your system then I see no benefit to giving your system a different label except to make you more comfortable.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Last edited:
I definately didn't miss it. I'm just mulling over how I want to respond. I anticipate that it will be a legnthly post and I'm short on time for the time being so I am limiting myself to short posts until things lighten up a bit for me. You can be looking for it perhaps as early as this weekend but more likely sometime next week. Sorry for the delay, I should have at least acknowledged your post. I'll try to be a little more thoughtful next time.
God_Is_Truth
New member
Z Man,
i am still waiting for you to respond to post 721. thanks.
i am still waiting for you to respond to post 721. thanks.
Z Man
New member
You missed the whole point of the context entirely.Originally posted by Knight
Now... as far as the other two verses....
God hardened Pharaoh's heart in the same way that He turned their hearts to hate His people.
In other words...
God chose a nation, people don't like knowing they are not the chosen ones and they often harden their hearts towards the chosen ones. God also showed His power in a big way in Egypt and the prideful Pharaoh heart was hardened.
Exodus 8:15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and did not heed them, as the LORD had said.
God said He would curse those who curse the Israelites. Now, Gen 12:3 clearly shows us that God opposes hatred toward his people, yet ordained that they be hated in Egypt. God turned the hearts of the Egyptians so that they would hate the Israelites. So, how do you explain this from your view? Is it not you who believes that God does not decree 'sin'? Why would God ordain people to hate His people when He opposes that very thing?
Again, you missed the point. Are you doing it on purpose? If I was held your view to be true, I know I would be avoiding them; you kinda have to to make your point valid still... :think:
I'm not trying to prove whether or not David sinned or how it was a sin or whatever. This passage of Scripture shows us that even though God told David it was a sin to take a census of his people, He ordained him to do it anyways. And even though God 'decreed' that David sin, God still punished him and his people.
How do you reconcile that with your view? This teaching from Scripture is exactly the 'concept' you OPPOSE. Who is right; you, or the Living, Holy Word of God?
How much time do you need?
Last edited:
Z Man
New member
GIT,
You didn't understand my point at all. I'm not saying I don't use 'logic' or 'reasoning' to tell right from wrong. I'm simply saying there is no way we can use our logic to understand some things about God. Sometimes, we just have to accept what the Scriptures tell us, and that's it.
You can't use human logic to unravel the mystery of the Trinity, or the power of God being able to just speak the world into existance, or the concept of the incarnation, and the fact that God, as a man, died. Thus, the belief that God is completely sovereign and man is responsible is also a mystery that is clearly taught to us through Scripture. We may not understand or fully grasp that concept, but it's still true nonetheless, because the Scriptures tell us so.