Does Calvinism limit God?

[John Reformed]

Originally posted by smaller

the really embarassing portions for the Calvinist view are the places where THEY limit God PARTICULARLY atonement.

It is THEY who write VOLUMES to turn ALL and THE WORLD into A PALTRY HANDFUL and a PITANCE. That is the really amazing part....

The Son of God tells us that "many" march the broad way that leads to "destruction" (Matt. 7:21-23); that "many" will hear Christ say in the day of judgment: "I never knew you, depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire" (Matt. 7:21-23; 25:41). Christ could not have died for the sins of those who die in their sins (John 8:24).

John

 

[smaller]

Many is a selective term that is used by Calvinists to replace ALL where ALL is noted.

Their response? ALL cannot POSSIBLY mean ALL so it MUST be "many." Yet even your MANY is NOT VERY many is it John?

Here are some ALL examples for you to TURN inTO MANY (meaning a few to you)

Romans 6:10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all

how many?

Hebrews 7:27 He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself

how many?

Hebrews 9:12 but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption

how many?

Hebrews 9:26 But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself

how many?
Hebrews 10:10 And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

how many?
1 Peter 3:18 ---------For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit

how many UNRIGHTEOUS?

Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

HOW MANY SINS John all, or a FEW????

Mark 3:28 I tell you the truth, all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them.

how many?

Colossians 2:13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins

how many?

There are MANY more of course, but you got the POINT, no pun intended...

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Z Man, instead of underlining that verse, they cross it out.

Yeah, no kidding! Either that, or they'll come up with some off-the-wall, wierd, extremely-out-of-context interpretation. And then they have to go write a book in an attempt to justify their explainations because they can't find any support from Scriptures.

It's kinda like lying. When you tell one lie, you have to tell another to cover the other one up, and so on, and so on. Open Theists have to explain their explainations of their explainations of how they interpret Scripture, because there is no support for them in the Word of God. They have to go make up their own stuff to justify thier false claims.

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Z Man

The point is, as you so clearly said in your last few sentences, is that there have to be books written to explain the thought of God limiting His own foresight, because that doctrine cannot be found in scripture. You guys have to make this stuff up and write volumes of book on this garbage because no where does it state in scripture that God does not know the future or has chosen to limit His knowledge of it therein. Thus, the Open Theists have to go and write books on the "thoughts" concerning an open view, and make all this mumbo jumbo stuff up.

It's not Scriptural.

Isaiah 46:8-10
"Remember this, and show yourselves men; Recall to mind, O you transgressors. Remember the former things of old, For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me, Declaring the end from the beginning, And from ancient times things that are not yet done, Saying, 'My counsel shall stand, And I will do all My pleasure,'

For the record, just as many books have been written attempting to defend Calvinism, foreknowledge, election, etc. The books I refer to are godly scholarship where differing views maturely present their case and interact with counterpoints, etc. The truth is worth wrestling with. You do not have the depth of understanding to realize the problems with your views and the strengths and weaknesses of other views.

e.g. the relationship of time and eternity is a fascinating study that is not fully treated in any given verse in the Bible. Sometimes we have to use godly philosophy and reasoning as we try to understand some aspects of reality and science.

Is. 46 is a favorite passage of Open Theists. It asserts that God is able to bring things to pass that He choses to, because of His omnicompetence and ABILITY. It is not a proof text for foreknowledge (Calvinism= decree; Arminianism= foreknowledge; Open Theism= Ability).

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Z Man, instead of underlining that verse, they cross it out.

Dr. Gregory Boyd in "God of the Possible" cogently exegetes this verse supporting his contention that there are 2 motifs in Scripture: some of the future is predestined and known (these are the verse you like, including this one); other verses show the future is open (these are the ones you ignore or interpret figuratively).

Many books on Open Theism use this verse to support our position. You display your ignorance by saying we cross it out. The difference is our understanding of the verse in relation to other equally valid verses.

 

[godrulz]

Free will implies an equal possibility of choosing A or B (genuine alternative). Until the choice is made, it is unknowable as a certainty/actuality, but is known as a possibility (especially from trillions of years ago...the future is not there to know...this is not a deficiency in omniscience...the past and present are knowable; to know a nothing is an absurdity= some aspects of the future).

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz
The truth is worth wrestling with.

Only if you actually do know know what the truth is.

You do not have the depth of understanding to realize the problems with your views and the strengths and weaknesses of other views.

Merely an assumption as well. That statement doesn't hold much water at all.

e.g. the relationship of time and eternity is a fascinating study that is not fully treated in any given verse in the Bible. Sometimes we have to use godly philosophy and reasoning as we try to understand some aspects of reality and science.

Karl Marx used to participate in this very thing. I believe that is how we have atheism today. :think:

Is. 46 is a favorite passage of Open Theists. It asserts that God is able to bring things to pass that He choses to, because of His omnicompetence and ABILITY. It is not a proof text for foreknowledge (Calvinism= decree; Arminianism= foreknowledge; Open Theism= Ability).

Ah, if only your ears and eyes were opened my friend. To see it any other way is simply rejected it. Pride will always stand in the way, unless God sends His Spirit to crush it.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

Dr. Gregory Boyd in "God of the Possible" cogently exegetes this verse supporting his contention that there are 2 motifs in Scripture: some of the future is predestined and known (these are the verse you like, including this one); other verses show the future is open (these are the ones you ignore or interpret figuratively).

Many books on Open Theism use this verse to support our position. You display your ignorance by saying we cross it out. The difference is our understanding of the verse in relation to other equally valid verses.

Dr. Gregory Boyd did not write the Bible either. That's the difference between me and you. I accept the perfect explanation for predestination is in the Scripture itself, not in some man-glorifying book.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Z Man
Yeah, no kidding! Either that, or they'll come up with some off-the-wall, wierd, extremely-out-of-context interpretation.

Originally posted by godrulz

Is. 46 is a favorite passage of Open Theists. It asserts that God is able to bring things to pass that He choses to, because of His omnicompetence and ABILITY. It is not a proof text for foreknowledge (Calvinism= decree; Arminianism= foreknowledge; Open Theism= Ability).

See what I mean?

Originally posted by godrulz
e.g. the relationship of time and eternity is a fascinating study that is not fully treated in any given verse in the Bible. Sometimes we have to use godly philosophy and reasoning as we try to understand some aspects of reality and science.

What in the world?!? How can you use your limited reasoning to understand the unlimited realities of God? In trying to do so, you put God in a man-made box.

 

[godrulz]

Dogmatic Calvinism arrogantly assumes it is the only valid theological perspective, despite its variations, controversies, and problems. Augustine was influenced by pagan philosophy that influenced Calvin. Calvin did not have the corner on truth any more than Luther, Wesley, etc. did. It is not easy to interpret Scripture apart from a theological bias.

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by godrulz

Dogmatic Calvinism arrogantly assumes it is the only valid theological perspective, despite its variations, controversies, and problems. Augustine was influenced by pagan philosophy that influenced Calvin. Calvin did not have the corner on truth any more than Luther, Wesley, etc. did. It is not easy to interpret Scripture apart from a theological bias.

No one is supporting Calvin here bud. I've only used Scripture to support my belief.

I have yet to see a verse that says God limits His knowledge of the future.

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

Dogmatic Calvinism arrogantly assumes it is the only valid theological perspective, despite its variations, controversies, and problems.

Arrogantly? No, arrogance is not a trait found within genuine Calvinists. Complete subjection to God the Father is though.

Augustine was influenced by pagan philosophy that influenced Calvin. Calvin did not have the corner on truth any more than Luther, Wesley, etc. did. It is not easy to interpret Scripture apart from a theological bias.

"Objection, your honor! This is only his opinion. No evidence is found in this."

Not easy to interpret Scripture apart from a theological bias?

only if the Spirit isn't guiding you............

 

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Swordsman


An Essay on Open Theism by Clark Pinnock

Thanks for sharing that link Swordsman.

Pinnock is a good writer and makes a plea for dialog and good will as we wait to see Open Theism mature. I found his observations interesting.

I'm not an Open Theist..................not yet, but my pastor is starting to get concerned about me. :shocked: What can that mean? Whatever shall I do? :think:

 

[godrulz]

Go with your head and your heart.

God is a creative, responsive, dynamic Father God.

He is not static, impassible (no feelings), dictatorial,
immutable (in every sense).

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by LightSon

Thanks for sharing that link Swordsman.

Pinnock is a good writer and makes a plea for dialog and good will as we wait to see Open Theism mature. I found his observations interesting.

I'm not an Open Theist..................not yet, but my pastor is starting to get concerned about me. :shocked: What can that mean? Whatever shall I do? :think:

Kinda funny what how he phrases the last part of that pamphlet.

Let’s heed Gamaliel who said, if something like open theism is of human origin, it will fail. But, if it is of God, no one will be able to overcome it (Acts 5:33-39). Let’s talk, let’s research, and let’s pray. It has not yet been proven that open theism is incompatible with other non-determinist traditions. Let’s leave the
door open for dialogue. Let’s listen to one another. Let open theism be a player along with the others. Let’s give it time to say what it has to say. By all means, let’s work with the other options too. There are other ways to view the divine foreknowledge, for example: there is simple foreknowledge, middle knowledge, and timeless knowledge. Maybe support for the “ twist” will grow, maybe not. At least, open theism can be a catalyst for further reflection as it is already proving to me. I think that this is a great time for all non-determinists. It is a day of opportunity - it is not a time for fraticide.

The only reason he thinks it should be given a chance is because God hasn't opened his eyes to the truth. And since open theism makes the most sense to him, he feels we all should "give it a chance." So maybe we should give mormonism and the jehovah's witnesses a chance too. What about Islam and Hindu and Buddha, let's give them a chance as well?

So any new doctrine that comes along, we should all take time to "give it a chance"???

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

Go with your head and your heart.

Yeah, we all know that will get you to heaven. Christ didn't teach to just feel what's already in your mind and heart and go with it. If so, my pleasure will always get the best of me, and I'm sure every other human being too.

God is a creative, responsive, dynamic Father God.

He is not static, impassible (no feelings), dictatorial,
immutable (in every sense).

Book, chapter, verse???

 

[godrulz]

Originally posted by Swordsman

Yeah, we all know that will get you to heaven. Christ didn't teach to just feel what's already in your mind and heart and go with it. If so, my pleasure will always get the best of me, and I'm sure every other human being too.



Book, chapter, verse???

We need an objective apologetic...i.e. the authoritative Word of God...this is the reason I believe Open Theism and reject some of determinism.

A subjective experience is not what I was encouraging...note head first (God reveals truth through our minds)...heart will be confirmatory.


Book, chapter? The whole weight of Scripture shows God interacting with humanity. It is pagan Greek philosophy that assumed God is the unmoved Mover= unchangeable in every sense (influenced Augustine).

 

[Swordsman]

Originally posted by godrulz

We need an objective apologetic...i.e. the authoritative Word of God...this is the reason I believe Open Theism and reject some of determinism.

A subjective experience is not what I was encouraging...note head first (God reveals truth through our minds)...heart will be confirmatory.


Book, chapter? The whole weight of Scripture shows God interacting with humanity. It is pagan Greek philosophy that assumed God is the unmoved Mover= unchangeable in every sense (influenced Augustine).

I don't mean to sound derogatory, but I'm not interested in your feelings about it. That is why the Word of God has been given to us. The truth is clearly seen that a dead, blind, ignorant person cannot and will not turn on his own to God. It takes the Spirit sent to turn and convict the heart.

However, salvation by works states that man can turn from his evil ways on his own. Hence, reason to boast. That is heresy.

 

[godrulz]

"It takes the Spirit to turn and convict the heart".

We agree Without God's revelation and drawing, we would continue to go our own selfish way. When the truth is preached, some believed, some scoffed, and some waited (Acts). The difference is not the secret will of God, the lack of efficacy of the gospel, etc. It is the different hearts/soils/openness, etc. that is also a factor. If you hear His voice and obey, He will draw close as we draw close. If we harden our hearts and ignore His voice, we will drift or deny Him.

God initiates, persuades, convicts, etc. through our God-given (image of God) will, intellect, and emotions.

There is a difference between responding to God's love with our God-given faculties, and trusting our own self-righteous works for salvation. All Protestants reject the latter. God does not coerce free will love relationships. Surrendering to Christ in obedience to His voice is not a 'work' like giving, going to church, living a good life, etc.

The work of God is to believe on the One He has sent.

 

[John Reformed]

What about people, who lived and died, never having had an opportunity to exercise their "free will" in accepting or rejecting the gospel?