ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[1Way]

Do you see the wolf in sheep's clothing yet?

Everyone wants to sound biblically accurate, but BEING biblically accurate is a completely different matter than claiming that you are. Stop walking in their footsteps, forge an unmovable path away from the masses and towards God and His word. Is there some overlap, sure, but a broken clock is right twice every day! So what, who cares if Christianity gets lots of things right, if they are the source for false doctrine and God's word is the source for truth and righteous doctrine, the way to go should only be easy!

 

[Rolf Ernst]

One Way and obfuscation--we just get underway on a discussion of text which makes some people uncomfortable because their theology cannot explain it, and One Way attempts to derail the discussion with another issue. I have noticed this before. That is one way's tactic in attempting to escape an issue that makes him uncomfortable. He has done this so often that his self-serving is becoming transparent.

ONE WAY--Why did you intrude into the discussion of a Bible text? If you want to discuss the "open view" of scripture with godrulz, the civilized way to do it is begin such a thread. In other words, if you find yourself in a room where a serious conversation is taking place, you should go find somewhere else to play.

This thread was begun by someone who dislikes Calvinism, but when reformed people begin to make a defense of it, you come into the room like a brat banging on pots and pans.

 

[1Way]

The issue of manmade tradition verses biblical truth is central to the topic. Godrulz and I are not discussing the open view, nor I am not trying to derail any ongoing conversation. Your falsifications are noted.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way


So you never did answer my question that you quoted. Do you stand corrected or not? Does the Open View reconcile scripture, or was that a slight mischaracterization based upon a lack of distinction between scripture and man's view of scripture?

I thought I clarified. I am not sure I am guilty of what you say. I stand corrected. The Open view describes what Scripture teaches. It does not reconcile wrong teachings? I think I agreed with you all along. Phrase it clearly, and I will rubber stamp it as corrected, expanded on, or in agreement.

Sola Scriptura. The Word of God is infallible, authoritative, and trustworthy (it still needs to be properly translated, interpreted, and applied).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Do you see the wolf in sheep's clothing yet?

Everyone wants to sound biblically accurate, but BEING biblically accurate is a completely different matter than claiming that you are. Stop walking in their footsteps, forge an unmovable path away from the masses and towards God and His word. Is there some overlap, sure, but a broken clock is right twice every day! So what, who cares if Christianity gets lots of things right, if they are the source for false doctrine and God's word is the source for truth and righteous doctrine, the way to go should only be easy!

What manmade doctrines do you mean?

The triune nature of God? The Deity of Christ? The personality of the Holy Spirit, incarnation, virgin conception, justification by grace through faith alone, the Word of God, the resurrection, the Second Coming, etc.

Most Christians agree on essentials. Other issues are not salvific, though important.

 

[1Way]

godrulz,
Concerning your post 1444
You said the open view reconciles scripture, I said no, the scriptures are fine, you can't harmonize what is in perfect harmony, it simply accurately reflects the bible's teaching on such things as man's free will and God's sovereignty and foreknowledge.

Conversely, the closed view is a false teaching and makes the masses at the very least confused as to how man's free will and God's control and foreknowledge work together. Concerning the whole open view verses the closed view debate, there are literally dozens if not hundreds of variables, including theories and doctrines and illustrations and theological views that altogether conflict and contradict each other and as such can not possibly accurately reflect the bible's position. So the problem is not God's word, the problem is man's faulty understanding. The task is to correct false ideas and promote the truth instead.

Are people drawn to God when they hear the truth about the awesome love and character of God?

Or are people drawn to God by lies and false teachings about Him and His ways?

Any discussion that is fundamental concerning who the savior is, is of tremendous import concerning evangelism and the success or lack therein of a Christian's walk of faith in God. You keep undermining the destructive nature of false doctrine. False doctrine is destructive and deadly. It's the truth that sets us free, not lies, that we would have life more abundantly, not death more abundantly.

I don't know how to clarify things any better, you didn't explain what was unclear. If you don't answer, it's your free choice.

Does the Open View "reconcile scripture", or was that a slight mischaracterization based upon a lack of distinction between scripture and man's view of scripture?[/u]

If you don't interject error into scripture, scripture should never need reconciliation, it's only man's faulty views that need correction and aid.

 

[1Way]

Godrulz,
As to your post 1445
You said

What manmade doctrines do you mean?

I did not mean nor imply any (particular) false doctrine, I mean what I said, all of them in general, "false doctrine".

You said

Most Christians agree on essentials. Other issues are not salvific, though important.

Here we go again. What most people believe is irrelevant when it comes to truth. Truth is absolute, it's not about popularity.

When it comes to "essentials", Christians agree and get lots of things in common, but that is beside the point. Who cares if you have lots in common when it's significant disunity and contradiction to a dying world that sees the false nature of such things. I thought it was true that it's the truth that sets one free indeed. I don't want anyone to be bound up and snared by false ideas.

Consider:
The world is represented by a patient under doctors care. The prognosis is dim and the diagnostic findings are controversial. As you know, differences in interpretation can lead different people to different conclusions and application. So lets say that the patient was in a car accident, they also were sick before the accident, and they have a few long term diseases of varying seriousness, including some medication and food allergies. Each one of the conditions taken by itself is not seriously life threatening, but when you add them all up together, for anyone to say that the situation is not a serious life or death matter, is missing and violating the overall context! If you mess up on an otherwise milder issue, the complications could easily kill the patient or else cause severe lasting harm to their health and well-being. When coming out of the doctors office, the LAST THING YOU WANT TO HEAR THE DOCTOR MUMBLE TO THE NURSE IS, WELL AT LEAST HE'S STILL ALIVE. (read, at least we did not kill him,,, yet!)

Now if you're a closed viewer, then ANY doctrine is reduced to a non-effectively crucial issue, because nothing we can or will do, can change anything. But in the open view, false teachings can end up wreaking havoc in peoples lives and so we are to follow God's commands to the best of our ability to rightly divide the word of truth, to become of one mind and one faith unified in Christ, like the noble Berean's, testing and proving doctrine according to the scriptures. :up:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by 1Way
Now if you're a closed viewer, then ANY doctrine is reduced to a non-effectively crucial issue, because nothing we can or will do, can change anything. But in the open view, false teachings can end up wreaking havoc in peoples lives and so we are to follow God's commands to the best of our ability to rightly divide the word of truth, to become of one mind and one faith unified in Christ, like the noble Berean's, testing and proving doctrine according to the scriptures. :up:

Excellent point! :up:

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

1Way: What most people believe is irrelevant when it comes to truth. Truth is absolute, it's not about popularity.

That's wasn't Godrulz point, though, he was saying some truths are more important that others. And they are, that's why creeds are not systematic theologies.

When it comes to "essentials", Christians agree and get lots of things in common, but that is beside the point.

Well, actually that was the point.

Who cares if you have lots in common when it's significant disunity and contradiction to a dying world that sees the false nature of such things.

Well, yet again, are the essential issues agree upon? That's the point. And it is an important one. Certainly disunity is bad. Disagreement can occur though, without disunity, and without contradiction, people can allow that it's not certain which view is correct, on non-essential issues.

And I don't think the world will mind that...

Now if you're a closed viewer, then ANY doctrine is reduced to a non-effectively crucial issue, because nothing we can or will do, can change anything.

I believe that believers can really choose, though. Yet God knows those choices, just like he can know his own choices, in advance.

But in the open view, false teachings can end up wreaking havoc in peoples lives ...

I think it's better if God is in control, though, how is it better if error can wreak havoc, that God does not control or intend?

Blessings,
Lee

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Did Jesus ordain and predestine the denial of Peter, or did He predict it based on His character? One should not read predestination and ordination into every free choice.

The point of the matter is Jesus said it was going to happen. And when it did, Peter did not shrug it off and dismiss the blame towards himself simply because Jesus told him it was going to happen. Peter knew he was guilty even though Jesus told him he was going to deny Him anyways.

I don't think Jesus made the 'prediction' based simply on the character of Peter. That would demean God to only a 'lucky guesser'. Jesus knew Peter was going to deny Him because He is in sovereign control of all things and ordained it from the beginning of time. Everything happened exactly the way God wanted it to; everything was ordained by Him, from the people questioning Peter to the exact time the rooster crowed. Everything had to happen at the right moment or Jesus' predictions could have become voided, and He would of been made a fool for false prophecy.

The same went with David's wives. God told David they were going to commit adultry, and sure enough, they did. God made sure of it. If they never did commit adulty, God would be a liar.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Z Man,

Have you ever heard of the law of non contradiction?

It basically says that things that are self-contradictory cannot be true because they are rationally impossible.

Your position is self-contradictory.

• "...God ordained adultry."
  
  "...no one is saying that God 'forces' people to sin."
  
  "God ordered by virtue of superior authority - decreed - that David's wives would commit adultry."

Make up your mind, or live with the fact that you are being irrational.

Resting in Him,
Clete

You still don't get it? Figures..

David's wives committed adulty, not against their wills, but because they wanted to. And the whole ordeal was ordained - decreed by God in 2 Samuel. You're arguing against a lost cause because Scripture will always stand, whether you agree with it or not.

If you still reject the idea that God ordains/predestines and that we are still held responsible, re-read Genesis 20:


Genesis 20:3-6
But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you are a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she is a man's wife." But Abimelech had not come near her; and he said, "Lord, will You slay a righteous nation also? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister'? And she, even she herself said, 'He is my brother.' In the integrity of my heart and innocence of my hands I have done this." And God said to him in a dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart. For I also withheld you from sinning against Me; therefore I did not let you touch her.


Abimelech was responsible for his innocence, but he was only innocent because God allowed him to be.

Now I'm doing the best I can to be nice and explain this rather 'odd', yet Scriptural truth to you (that God predestines and we are responsible at the same time), but Paul had a better approach to answering people like you who questioned God's sovereignty. He pretty much told them to keep their mouths shut, since they are nothing but a lowly human being:


Romans 9:19-20
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?


But I won't go there for now, because I trust you value Scripture enough to take it for what it says and trust in it alone...

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way


I don't know how to clarify things any better, you didn't explain what was unclear. If you don't answer, it's your free choice. If you don't interject error into scripture, scripture should never need reconciliation, it's only man's faulty views that need correction and aid.

This is self-evident and goes without saying. I wholeheartedly affirm this as do you, I take it.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by 1Way

Godrulz,
As to your post 1445
You said I did not mean nor imply any (particular) false doctrine, I mean what I said, all of them in general, "false doctrine".

You said Here we go again. What most people believe is irrelevant when it comes to truth. Truth is absolute, it's not about popularity.

When it comes to "essentials", Christians agree and get lots of things in common, but that is beside the point. Who cares if you have lots in common when it's significant disunity and contradiction to a dying world that sees the false nature of such things. I thought it was true that it's the truth that sets one free indeed. I don't want anyone to be bound up and snared by false ideas.

Consider:
The world is represented by a patient under doctors care. The prognosis is dim and the diagnostic findings are controversial. As you know, differences in interpretation can lead different people to different conclusions and application. So lets say that the patient was in a car accident, they also were sick before the accident, and they have a few long term diseases of varying seriousness, including some medication and food allergies. Each one of the conditions taken by itself is not seriously life threatening, but when you add them all up together, for anyone to say that the situation is not a serious life or death matter, is missing and violating the overall context! If you mess up on an otherwise milder issue, the complications could easily kill the patient or else cause severe lasting harm to their health and well-being. When coming out of the doctors office, the LAST THING YOU WANT TO HEAR THE DOCTOR MUMBLE TO THE NURSE IS, WELL AT LEAST HE'S STILL ALIVE. (read, at least we did not kill him,,, yet!)

Now if you're a closed viewer, then ANY doctrine is reduced to a non-effectively crucial issue, because nothing we can or will do, can change anything. But in the open view, false teachings can end up wreaking havoc in peoples lives and so we are to follow God's commands to the best of our ability to rightly divide the word of truth, to become of one mind and one faith unified in Christ, like the noble Berean's, testing and proving doctrine according to the scriptures. :up:

I agree. We are to love truth and hate error.

Please tell us the definitive chronology of eschatology in every detail including the future.

If I do not accept every point, am I a false teacher?

What does every verse relating to eschatology mean? What are the symbols?

I have my views, but they are not the basis of my unity with other believers. Jesus Christ is our common denominator.

I am pre-trib., pre-mill., etc. So what.

This is what is explicit in Scripture:

We are to know He is coming and we are to occupy until He comes.

The identity of the antichrist, the horn on a beast, etc. are speculative. Did not Daniel hint that some things would not be clear until the end?

Without devaluing the Word or truth, God honors faith in Christ, not just theological excellence (there are legitimate areas of theology you and I do not even know about or understand).

For the record, I am one of the main proponents of the Open View and main resisters of hyper-Calvinism here.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

The point of the matter is Jesus said it was going to happen. And when it did, Peter did not shrug it off and dismiss the blame towards himself simply because Jesus told him it was going to happen. Peter knew he was guilty even though Jesus told him he was going to deny Him anyways.

I don't think Jesus made the 'prediction' based simply on the character of Peter. That would demean God to only a 'lucky guesser'. Jesus knew Peter was going to deny Him because He is in sovereign control of all things and ordained it from the beginning of time. Everything happened exactly the way God wanted it to; everything was ordained by Him, from the people questioning Peter to the exact time the rooster crowed. Everything had to happen at the right moment or Jesus' predictions could have become voided, and He would of been made a fool for false prophecy.

The same went with David's wives. God told David they were going to commit adultry, and sure enough, they did. God made sure of it. If they never did commit adulty, God would be a liar.

Is sovereignty meticulous control or providential and responsive (creative)? I believe the latter.

Is free will genuine and libertarian or illusory? I believe the former.

Is there a deterministic blueprint or is the warfare model of Jesus' ministry more accurate? (the latter).

Is God personal, living, dynamic, responsive, creative, free, etc. or is He absolutely immutable, impassible, static, a control freak, etc. (the former).

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Is sovereignty meticulous control or providential and responsive (creative)? I believe the latter.

Is free will genuine and libertarian or illusory? I believe the former.

Is there a deterministic blueprint or is the warfare model of Jesus' ministry more accurate? (the latter).

Is God personal, living, dynamic, responsive, creative, free, etc. or is He absolutely immutable, impassible, static, a control freak, etc. (the former).

Your opinions do not matter and cannot stand in the face and scrutiny of the irrefutable living Word of God.

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Zman: I don't think Jesus made the 'prediction' based simply on the character of Peter. That would demean God to only a 'lucky guesser'.

And notice that Jesus must guess not only Peter's character, but also his memory! The rooster would crow twice, and the first time, Peter must not remember Jesus' prediction. And Jesus must predict that Peter's courage and cowardice would balance, rather precariously, he had to be brave enough to follow, and stay, and be challenged three times, and yet still deny him. And also the soldier must not decide to arrest him! Like he tried to, in the garden.

John 18:26 One of the high priest's servants, a relative of the man whose ear Peter had cut off, challenged him, "Didn't I see you with him in the olive grove?"

Zman: Everything had to happen at the right moment or Jesus' predictions could have become voided, and He would of been made a fool for false prophecy.

Yes, Jesus, said "truly, truly," and what would that mean to Peter, if he realized later that Jesus was only guessing, and could have been wrong?

John 21:18 "Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go."

"Truly, truly," again, here. Is this another guess? Years in advance?

Godrulz: This is what is explicit in Scripture:

We are to know He is coming and we are to occupy until He comes.

Yes! And he said he would surprise us (Mt. 24:44). Well, he will!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

Your opinions do not matter and cannot stand in the face and scrutiny of the irrefutable living Word of God.

Its a free country. Academic freedom integrity values informed opinions, whether everyone agrees with each other or not. Mine do not stand the scrutiny of a Calvinistic filter, but I trust they are based on sound exegesis of the Word.

How many times is the word 'sovereignty' used in the Bible? How central is it to Calvinism? Is there more than one way to understand the sovereignty of a king. Human kings can rule without controlling every detail in the kingdom. Their wills can even be resisted without overthrowing the King. How much more can God rule and reign without knowing or controlling/predestining/decreeing/ordaining every mundane and moral choice.

There is not an explicit definition of sovereignty in the Bible, so we have to formulate an understanding based on all relevant verses about God's nature and ways (as well as what it means for humans to be in the image of God).

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Originally posted by godrulz

There is not an explicit definition of sovereignty in the Bible...

Isn't this one here?

Mt 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

And "authority" in such statements doesn't mean just the right to rule:

Lu 4:36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, "What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out!"

Lu 10:19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

So it means power or control, and thus all power and control is in Jesus' hands, which means ... no one has authority independent of him!

Blessings,
Lee

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by lee_merrill

Hi everyone,



Isn't this one here?

Mt 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me."

And "authority" in such statements doesn't mean just the right to rule:

Lu 4:36 All the people were amazed and said to each other, "What is this teaching? With authority and power he gives orders to evil spirits and they come out!"

Lu 10:19 I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you.

So it means power or control, and thus all power and control is in Jesus' hands, which means ... no one has authority independent of him!

Blessings,
Lee

True. How does God exercise His authority (exousia) and power (dunamis). There is a distinction in these concepts. Omnipotence also does not mean that God always used all of His power all of the time.

God gave authority to Adam to name animals. He gives authority to governments, police, angels, parents, teachers. There is delegated authority, as you rightly point out.

The Pharisees resisted God's authority and will for them (Luke). Satan resists God's authority.

Authority and sovereignty does not have to mean meticulous control in every detail. God rules and exercises His authority in addition to granting us genuine freedom. He rules providentially and responsively. This is another way He choses to be sovereign. He is not a Dictator or control freak. We are not robots. He is sovereign and has all power and authority, but that does not mean that He controls every moral and mundane choice in the universe. In the end, justice and righteousness will reign. At the moment, there is still rebellion against His rightful rule (without making Him less sovereign over the universe).

 

[lee_merrill]

Hi Godrulz,

How does God exercise His authority (exousia) and power (dunamis). There is a distinction in these concepts.

Yes, I agree.

Omnipotence also does not mean that God always used all of His power all of the time.

Agreed again!

The Pharisees resisted God's authority and will for them (Luke).

Yet I believe we may hope for all people to be saved, even these rebellious Pharisees.

Satan resists God's authority.

But Jesus came to destroy (not just reduce!) the works of the devil.

Authority and sovereignty does not have to mean meticulous control in every detail. God rules and exercises His authority in addition to granting us genuine freedom.

Yes, I agree yet a third time!

Now I think I interpret this a bit differently, and say that only believers can really choose, within God's will, and thus he remains in complete control.

He is not a Dictator or control freak. We are not robots.

I'm having so much fun agreeing! Yes, most definitely...

He is sovereign and has all power and authority, but that does not mean that He controls every moral and mundane choice in the universe. In the end, justice and righteousness will reign. At the moment, there is still rebellion against His rightful rule (without making Him less sovereign over the universe).

Amen!

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. I hope I didn't forget to mention that I agree with most of your post!