So I take it you are not a settled viewer?Machaira said:
Is the future settled in advance or is it open (or even partially open)?
docrob57 put your money where your mouth is.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Is the future settled in advance or is it open (or even partially open)?
Kimberlyann
New member
Babies going to hell.... that has got to be the most sick and twisted theology I ever heard!Knight said:
How can someone believe a Loving God would torture innocent babies in hell?
Machaira
New member
Knight said:
From God's perspective its a done deal.
Isa 46:9 . . . I am God, and there is none like me,
Isa 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose . . .
From our perspective, we have choices to make and things to do . . . and so does God.
Pro 16:9 The heart of man plans his way, but the LORD establishes his steps.
Well then I repeat my question....Machaira said:
You stated...
To which I asked....
Does he have a choice?
In light of your last response maybe you could answer that question again?
If the future is a "done deal" can man make any REAL choices? Or are man's choices just illusionary as you seem to be suggesting?
Kimberlyann said:
Yes and no.
The most honest answer a Calvinist can (and does) give would go something like this: "I just don't know." Since all souls are predestined before the foundation of the world, the fate of the baby's soul is already predetermined; however, it's impossible for anyone to know if their soul in particular was redeemed or not. A dead infant is not of necessity damned just because of its age.
"I just don't know" is usually paired with "Well, we need to trust God; the child is in his hands," or words to that effect. To say "Calvinists think babies go to hell" is not entirely accurate...although Calvinism does by its nature open the door to the possibility some of the time.
Is the future a "done deal" or not?Machaira said:
If it is, how can I do anything other than what is determined via the "done deal"?
That is illogical.Machaira said:
RayOfLight
New member
The passage to which you refer I believe is Isaiah 46:9b-10a: "I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning." Some traditional and neoclassical interpreters, most strongly in the Calvinist and Reformed heritage, understand this verse and other like it to support a universal divine determinism. However, I believe the language and the context of Isaiah must be stretched inappropriately to arrive at this conclusion. Let me explain.
Contextually, Isaiah 46 is dominated by the theme of God's reassurance of deliverance. (1) The pseudo-gods could not rescue Israel & have themselves been exiled (Foil against which to contrast God, 46:1-2); (2) But Israel should be assured that God will continue to give them support and that he will deliver them (Claim, 46:3-4; 12-13), (3) because he is not like powerless idols (Warrant, 46:5-7), and (4), because, as they should remember, he has repeatedly delivered them in the past as he had promised (Warrant, 46:8-11).
Since the conceptual boundaries in this immediate context are limited to the deliverance of God's people, I would suggest that an extrapolation from "I (repeatedly) declare the end (deliverance) from the beginning," (i.e., Noah & family; Lot & family; Israel from Egypt) to a dogmatic universal principle (like "God absolutely determine's all things") is exegetically suspect.
Furthermore, it is literarily unnecessary. Reconsider the text: "I am God, and there is no one like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning." Note that he does not indicate that he declares all ends from the beginning. To infer from the text that God means that he determines absolutely everything is grammatically/syntactically unnecessary. He declares what will be as it relates to this specific occasion, not universally; neither does he declare the specific means to that end. Tangentially, I would make a seemingly simple but crucial distinction regarding our conception of foreknowledge which is undergirded by this text: God does not declare the end because he knows it (as if it had already occurred), but he knows what the end will be because he declares it, i.e., he has determined to do it. God's foreknowledge derives from his determinism, not vice versa, and his determinism is not absolute or meticulous in all cases.
Though I'm not sure of the exact meaning of your first question, I would say, "No," it does not simply mean that he can differentiate between them. That would seem to imply God was an impotent spectator of sorts, as I believe the various doctrines of Simple Foreknowledge do when carried to their logical ends, and not the passionate relational person that he has revealed himself to be. It means he has, in Isaiah 46, declared a specific end that he plans to bring about, though the means to that end are open, and extrapolation to absolute determinism is unwarranted.
Regarding your second question, I believe you are on the right track (although I prefer to avoid the term "simply"). God has declared some clear eschatological specifics: Jesus will return; he will resurrect the just and the unjust; all will be judged, etc. But, to use a Southern Baptist confession, he will accomplish these things "In his own time and in his own way."
Since "his own way" includes his sovereign free choice to give real freedom of choice to humans, some things God can not "declare," for the jury is still out. For example, God has declared that there will be a resurrection of the just and the unjust; that has been divinely determined and is therefore certain. However, which category a person will occupy (just or unjust) depends largely on her free response to the grace of God and therefore has not yet been/ can not be yet "declared." That part of the future is open.
Consider two texts which demonstrate how our choices significantly influence the course of history. If king Saul had exercised his freedom differently, the Judeo-Christian heritage might today speak of a "Saulite" kingdom rather than a Davidic kingdom (1 Sam 13:13). Furthermore, God explicitly states that some of the future is conditioned by the free choices of humans, and therefore open until those choices are made (cf. Luke 13.3). But God also makes some promises which are conditional, though he does not explicitly state them to be so (i.e., 1 Sam 2:27-30).
This brings us back to Isaiah 46. While the immediate context seems to contain an unconditional determination by God, other passages in the broader context of scripture suggest that the actual fruition of this particular instance of deliverance may be conditional. Deut 30:1-10 and Jeremiah 29:11-14 portray God's planned deliverance/restoration as conditioned upon repentance/return to the Lord (see also Neh 1:9; Deut 4:29-31; and others). Therefore, even here, as with Eli in 1 Sam 2:27-30, the plan may be conditional without God explicitly saying so.
Kevin James Gilbert
Adjunct Faculty, David Lipscomb University
source
RayOfLight
New member
Machaira,
Is it true that
?
If it's not, could you explain to me why this is so?
Is it true that
- the righteous always prosper and the wicked are always punished (3:33),
- that the wise always inherit honor and the fools are always shamed, (3:35)
- that the righteous never go hungry and the cravings of the wicked are always thwarted (10:3)
- that a quiet answer always turns away wrath, (15:1)
?
If it's not, could you explain to me why this is so?
Proverbs 16:9 doesn't exist in a vacuum. Let's check it out....Machaira said:
Prov. 16:9
A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
A man’s heart plans his what?
A man’s heart plans his WAY,
can I get an AMEN???
A man’s heart plans his way,
Us men have our own heart - and our own will.... and we can plan our own way but if we rely of God He will direct our steps. If man had no will why would God have said... "A man’s heart plans his way,?
Lets drive home the point.....
Rewind to the beginning of Proverbs 16....
Proverbs 16:1The preparations of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. 2 All the ways of a man are pure in his own eyes, But the LORD weighs the spirits. 3 Commit your works to the LORD, And your thoughts will be established. 4 The LORD has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. 5 Everyone proud in heart is an abomination to the LORD; Though they join forces, none will go unpunished. 6 In mercy and truth Atonement is provided for iniquity; And by the fear of the LORD one departs from evil. 7 When a man’s ways please the LORD, He makes even his enemies to be at peace with him. 8 Better is a little with righteousness, Than vast revenues without justice. 9 A man’s heart plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.
Again the entire chapter oozes man's ability to have his own intentions and his owns ways that might not be in line with God's will.
Lets dig deeper for more context...
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; 6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.
"lean not on your own understanding;" Our own understanding?????? How can we have our "own understanding" if we have no will of our own? And why does God go to the trouble of telling us to acknowledge Him so that He can direct our paths if we can't help but have Him direct our paths???
Proverbs 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding;6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths.
QUESTION: When does He direct our paths???????
ANSWER: When we lean not on our own understandings and acknowledge Him in all of our ways.
The entire meaning of all these verses above is meaningless IF man has no ability to have his own understandings or willpower.
Last edited:
RayOfLight
New member
amen!
Machaira
New member
RayOfLight said:
Proverbs are generally true, but not universally. A good example of this are Proverbs 16:1 & 9, where we are told that the plans of the heart belong to man. This isn't always true. There are occasions found in Scripture where God clearly imposes His will on men and they have nothing to say about it. I've made this point before. For examples see Exo 7:3, Deu 2:30, Jos 11:20, 1Sa 2:25, 1Ki 12:15, 1Ki 22:23, 2Ch 25:16, Isa 6:10, Rom 9:18.
Not one of your references demonstrates God removes man's will.Machaira said:
Each and every one of those verses have been discussed ad nauseum here on TOL but I would gladly entertain them all again if you really want to.
Take Pharaoh for example. If God was going to remove Pharaoh's will He would have simply forced Pharaoh to let His people go! After all.... that is what God wanted right?
Instead what we find is that Pharaoh fought against God's will and the more God demonstrated His power the more prideful Pharaoh became and therefore the harder Pharaoh's heart became. When God said “And I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." God is simply stating a fact. God knows Pharaoh, and God knows how Pharaoh will react to God's power, therefore God accurately predicts that He will help Pharaoh harden His heart.
Therefore it is Pharaoh that is responsible for his hard heart.
For more clarification see.....
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.
Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.
Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.
Exodus 9:7 Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go.
Exodus 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.
Exodus 9:35 So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the LORD had spoken by Moses.
Exodus 14:5 Now it was told the king of Egypt that the people had fled, and the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people; and they said, “Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?”
God's will was that His people be let go. Right?Exodus 8:19 Then the magicians said to Pharaoh, “This is the finger of God.” But Pharaoh’s heart grew hard, and he did not heed them, just as the LORD had said.
Exodus 8:32 But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.
Exodus 9:7 Then Pharaoh sent, and indeed, not even one of the livestock of the Israelites was dead. But the heart of Pharaoh became hard, and he did not let the people go.
Exodus 9:34 And when Pharaoh saw that the rain, the hail, and the thunder had ceased, he sinned yet more; and he hardened his heart, he and his servants.
Exodus 9:35 So the heart of Pharaoh was hard; neither would he let the children of Israel go, as the LORD had spoken by Moses.
Exodus 14:5 Now it was told the king of Egypt that the people had fled, and the heart of Pharaoh and his servants was turned against the people; and they said, “Why have we done this, that we have let Israel go from serving us?”
Pharaoh, would not let God's people go. Right?
Therefore God clearly was not in control of Pharaoh's will.
God hardening Pharaoh's heart is nothing more than a way of saying.... Pharaoh is prideful and will become more prideful when God shows His wonders to Pharaoh.
Okay, I have answered this question at least 3 times, but I will try once more from a different angle, and this is going to be it because I am getting really tired of it.
First, I said that I did not think OVers were saved. I also said I hoped either that I was wrong or that you would repent.
I think you are not saved because you embrace a doctrine which blasphemes God. I am sure I will miss some of the reasons why, because the doctrine is so thoroughly blasphemous, but among the reasons that this is true are:
There is more, but this is more than sufficent to establish blasphemy. If this sin was a "one time event," there would be much more doubt as to the status of your salvation. But this, again, is false doctrine that you embrace with enthusiasm, so much so that you express complete lack of concern when confronted with the fact that you are considered a heretic by many (here I am speaking of the numerous orthodox Protestant theologians who find the OV as revolting as I do).
As such, it seems clear that you fall within the meaning of what John said when he wrote:
You qualify as a false teacher, as described by Peter
Your confession of Christ per Romans 10:9 is false.
You, of course, will say that the general epistles apply only to Israel and not to the Body. This is the fooloshness of dispensationalism and not the foolishness of the Open View, and I will let others deal with you on that.
So that is why I say what I do (again).
First, I said that I did not think OVers were saved. I also said I hoped either that I was wrong or that you would repent.
I think you are not saved because you embrace a doctrine which blasphemes God. I am sure I will miss some of the reasons why, because the doctrine is so thoroughly blasphemous, but among the reasons that this is true are:
The open view denies God's power by attempting to limit His knowledge and ability to control events.
Though it tries to do just the opposite, the open view in fact portrays God as cruel and impotent in arguing that tragic and evil events occur despite God's will, effectively placing man and Satan in control and leaving mankind helpless against its most evil elements.
The open view, apparently, denies the doctrine of original sin, leaving no reason that man must have a sinful nature and, ultimately, no reason my Christ needed to die
The open view suggests that God had no control over the manner in which Christ died, suggesting that Satan was, in some limited way, victorious in the matter
There is more, but this is more than sufficent to establish blasphemy. If this sin was a "one time event," there would be much more doubt as to the status of your salvation. But this, again, is false doctrine that you embrace with enthusiasm, so much so that you express complete lack of concern when confronted with the fact that you are considered a heretic by many (here I am speaking of the numerous orthodox Protestant theologians who find the OV as revolting as I do).
As such, it seems clear that you fall within the meaning of what John said when he wrote:
You qualify as a false teacher, as described by Peter
Your confession of Christ per Romans 10:9 is false.
You, of course, will say that the general epistles apply only to Israel and not to the Body. This is the fooloshness of dispensationalism and not the foolishness of the Open View, and I will let others deal with you on that.
So that is why I say what I do (again).
This is a fasinating statement to me. The open view does allow man and Satan to make their own decisions and evil can, and frequintly does, result from our choices. But they are our choices, attributed soley to us, not to God. Thus man and Satan, not God, are responsible for evil.docrob57 said:
The settled view of your statement is what I find so fasinating. In the settled view, God is responsible for every action by every created being. So God is directly responsible for every evil act. A rape is preordained by God for God glory (can you explain that to me)? The doctors and police officers that help a rape victum do so only because they have preordained by God to do so. A child is killed for Gods glory. Every one of the many divorices (that God HATES) must take place for Gods glory because He has preordained it so. Under the settled view, there can be no sin because God directs everything and everything is done for His Glory. I don't get it. It is the most depressing, evil and hopeless rendition of the gospel I have ever heard!
Have I missed something?
B1sh0p
New member
docrob57 said:
docrob, you seemed well versed but I have encountered this precise A-Z logic before and I think you should moderate somewhat for several reasons. First salvation does not rest in 100% doctrinal accuracy because every Christian is at different stages in their walk with the Lord. We are asked first to repent and trust Christ for the salvation of our souls, this is the beginnging of our walk. Second even among Calvinists there is a wide range of beliefs, consider the Lords supper. Third unless someone comes out and says that Christ is not coming or that Christ was not God on what basis are they going to hell. Fourth if your doctrine is off by even 1% techinically you are false teacher. Lastly a person should be judged based on the fruit they bare - profession of faith, helping the sick, weak, widows, a persons speech, self sacrifice, desire to grow in grace. Is there something more explicit in OV theology that im missing? Can a Catholic be Christian? A southern Baptist? ---Anyway just my two cents
CabinetMaker said:
Yes. God is not the author of sin. Man is always responsible for sin. God in his omnipotence, can use man's evil for His perfect purposes. The crucifixion is the obvious and best example.
The open view tries to make God understandable by bringing him down to your level. That is a bad mistake.