Is Calvinism Right?
- Thread starter Exegete
- Start date
Re: Is Calvinism Right?
Greetings Exegete and welcome to TOL.
I wish you good luck with your quest to find a Calvinist who is able to defend the system. I personally don't think that the system is defensible at all, so you might be in for a long wait.
Open Theism has been mentioned already on this thread and you have denied being in that camp. I'm curious about that because I consider the two (Calvinism and Open Theism) to be near perfect opposites and have found that most everyone falls into one or the other camp. Even Arminians, who hate Calvinism, are very Calvinistic in much of their theology about the nature of time and whether or not God exists within or outside of it, etc. The bottom line is that one of two things is true...
1. We can choose to do or to do otherwise. In which case we are free and the future cannot be known and is therefore 'open'.
or...
2. The future is known or at least knowable (by what means is a secondary issue). In which case, we cannot do otherwise and we do not have a free will.
I do not know of a third option, which makes this a real easy thing to figure out because the whole theme of the Bible is God's relationship with mankind. Relationship is impossible without a free will, or at least a loving relationship is, because love must be volitional, it must be freely chosen. Thus option two is impossible and the future must therefore be at least partially open.
I don't know the exact nature of the problems which you have with Calvinism, but I suspect that if they are problems based upon sound reason (logic) and the plain reading of Scripture, then you will find that you are more "into the "Open" view" than you think you are.
I certainly hope you decide to stick around; it would be interesting to discuss the Open View with someone who is at once intelligent, articulate and not Calvinist.
God bless and again, welcome to TOL!
Resting in Him,
Clete
Originally posted by Exegete
Hello all! I'm new to the board and look foward to getting to know you.
When I was in college (10 plus years ago) I was introduced to Calvinism and accepted its teaching because I was convinced it was biblical. Sense then I have done some much more extensive study on the topic and found the system to be inaccurate both logically and biblically.
I would love to discuss this with someone who considers themselves Calvinistic and able to defend the system's tenets.
Is this the appropriate place to make that request? Thank you.
Greetings Exegete and welcome to TOL.
I wish you good luck with your quest to find a Calvinist who is able to defend the system. I personally don't think that the system is defensible at all, so you might be in for a long wait.
Open Theism has been mentioned already on this thread and you have denied being in that camp. I'm curious about that because I consider the two (Calvinism and Open Theism) to be near perfect opposites and have found that most everyone falls into one or the other camp. Even Arminians, who hate Calvinism, are very Calvinistic in much of their theology about the nature of time and whether or not God exists within or outside of it, etc. The bottom line is that one of two things is true...
1. We can choose to do or to do otherwise. In which case we are free and the future cannot be known and is therefore 'open'.
or...
2. The future is known or at least knowable (by what means is a secondary issue). In which case, we cannot do otherwise and we do not have a free will.
I do not know of a third option, which makes this a real easy thing to figure out because the whole theme of the Bible is God's relationship with mankind. Relationship is impossible without a free will, or at least a loving relationship is, because love must be volitional, it must be freely chosen. Thus option two is impossible and the future must therefore be at least partially open.
I don't know the exact nature of the problems which you have with Calvinism, but I suspect that if they are problems based upon sound reason (logic) and the plain reading of Scripture, then you will find that you are more "into the "Open" view" than you think you are.
I certainly hope you decide to stick around; it would be interesting to discuss the Open View with someone who is at once intelligent, articulate and not Calvinist.
God bless and again, welcome to TOL!
Resting in Him,
Clete
:nono:
- [jesus]Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Matthew 7:13-14
[/jesus]
According to this Jesus, the majority reject Him and the salvation He offers.
Also, Jesus is telling people that they should choose "the strait gate." If God had predetermined who will be saved and who won't, it was pointless for Jesus to say, [jesus]"Enter ye in at the strait gate."[/jesus]
Last edited:
Clete,
I do not support the Open view because I do not believe it is biblical. I don't reject biblical doctrines simply because I don't fully understand them, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or foreknowledge. Clearly both are taught throughout scripture but I don't pretend to know how they work exactly.
I do believe that men have libertarian free will in that they can choose other than what was chosen. (contra-causaul choice) But I do not see how foreknowledge hinders that freedom in any way.
This might be a problem if we denied that God's knowledge of such events was really FOREknowledge. To know before is not equal to know after. After something has happened it can't be done differently and thus is determined. The knowledge we have of the past is knowledge based about something that is set and determined, but knowledge of something yet to come is not. To have foreknowledge is to know what will occur prior in time to its occurrence and before it has been determined. To know it before is not equal to determining it to be. I can foreknow that the sun will rise in the morning. My knowledge is based upon prior experience and a bit of faith, but nothing in my foreknowledge of the sun rising suggests that I determine it or cause it to rise.
God's foreknowledge is different obviously, not in its being foreknowledge, but in the basis of his knowledge. My foreknowledge is based on experience, whereas his is based in the event itself. But this knowledge does not determine the event, anymore that my foreknowledge determines the rising of the sun, regardless of what that foreknowledge is based upon. We will do what God knows we will do, which is to say, "we will do what we will do." But nothing about his prior knowledge of what we do determines what we do any more than my prior knowledge of the sun's rising determines what it will do.
Our free actions determine God's foreknowledge of those actions, not vice versa. Thus, while it is true that whatever God knows about the future will in fact occur, this fact poses no threat to my claim that our future free actions are truly free.
I do not support the Open view because I do not believe it is biblical. I don't reject biblical doctrines simply because I don't fully understand them, such as the doctrine of the Trinity or foreknowledge. Clearly both are taught throughout scripture but I don't pretend to know how they work exactly.
I do believe that men have libertarian free will in that they can choose other than what was chosen. (contra-causaul choice) But I do not see how foreknowledge hinders that freedom in any way.
This might be a problem if we denied that God's knowledge of such events was really FOREknowledge. To know before is not equal to know after. After something has happened it can't be done differently and thus is determined. The knowledge we have of the past is knowledge based about something that is set and determined, but knowledge of something yet to come is not. To have foreknowledge is to know what will occur prior in time to its occurrence and before it has been determined. To know it before is not equal to determining it to be. I can foreknow that the sun will rise in the morning. My knowledge is based upon prior experience and a bit of faith, but nothing in my foreknowledge of the sun rising suggests that I determine it or cause it to rise.
God's foreknowledge is different obviously, not in its being foreknowledge, but in the basis of his knowledge. My foreknowledge is based on experience, whereas his is based in the event itself. But this knowledge does not determine the event, anymore that my foreknowledge determines the rising of the sun, regardless of what that foreknowledge is based upon. We will do what God knows we will do, which is to say, "we will do what we will do." But nothing about his prior knowledge of what we do determines what we do any more than my prior knowledge of the sun's rising determines what it will do.
Our free actions determine God's foreknowledge of those actions, not vice versa. Thus, while it is true that whatever God knows about the future will in fact occur, this fact poses no threat to my claim that our future free actions are truly free.
Yet if the foreknowledge were exhaustive and perfect the foreknowledge would include the arrest.
Get the point?
God_Is_Truth
New member
Exegete, i'm still waiting for a response to this:
SOTK
New member
Question: How new is Open Theology? It's a pretty new position isn't it? Whereas I've heard of Calvinism (the term) for quite some time, I had never heard of Open Theology until coming here. According to Clete, Calvinism isn't defensible nor biblical. If Open Theology is biblical and easily defended, why is it such a new Theology? The Bible is pretty old. You mean to tell me that we people of the One God have had it wrong for thousands of years? Furthermore, that the truth of Open Theology has alluded us for that long?
God_Is_Truth
New member
if that's for me, then no.
God_Is_Truth
New member
since when is the truth of something determined by the amount of people who believe in it or the amount of time by which it is believed?
something completely false can be believed by many people for many years. people used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe and that it was flat.
truth is not a popularity contest. what we learn about the world changes and so does our understanding of scripture. we should not hold on to a doctrine (like a settled future) because the "fathers" held to it or because it's been held to for a "long time". we should only hold to it if we believe it is scripturally backed and isn't logically absurd...
SOTK
New member
That's not my argument. My point is that it appears as arrogance to dismiss Calvinism as not biblical or as not defensible. If you want to say that Open Theism has more biblical truth for you, than fine. I can handle that, but it's awefully arrogant to say Calvinism is not biblical or defensible when the Theology you subscribe to is awefully new. It's a really bold statement.
God_Is_Truth
New member
i apologize then. that's how it came off though.
we don't say that one doesn't have biblical support for it in terms of finding verses that give merit to the ideas of calvinism. what we say is that the use of those verses to support calvinism is unmeritted either because of the context of the verse itself or because it is illogical or for some other reason.
you have to keep in mind, for the longest time in history, the only people who had bibles were the church leaders. commoners did not have access to it. what the pope said was the rule. further, you did not question what the church said or you would be likely excommunicated. thus, it's not suprising that for much of church history, there is little debate except against clear heresies. there were no "alternate" ways of looking at scripture and one could not tell the church they were wrong. this is precisely why Martin Luther started up such a revolution by pointing out 93 things that were doctrinally questionable. it simply was not done.
even after Luther, many people did not have their own bibles and few even then understood much of what they read. people were not as educated then, they didn't have "bible studies" or "theological seminaries" to look at things up close. most people were busy making ends meat. so even the things that calvin and luther and wesley taught should be looked at biblically to see if they hold up.
the ideas of open theism have been recorded as early as the 4th century actually (Calsidius) though greater recordings are found in the 19th century up to present day. so yes, open theism is "new" in that most people have not heard of it until this century, but the ideas are old in at least some sense (Calsidius).
bear in mind again, that a doctrine is new or old tells us nothing of the validity and truth of it. bottom line, is it scritpural and logical are the two questions we ask when considering any theology. if it's lacking in either of those, we discard it.
SOTK
New member
To you.
Yeah. That may be true for you, but not for some others.
We've had access to the Bible for hundreds of years. Setting aside even that, you can't dismiss the fact that the Open View is new. Because it is new, it comes off as arrogance to state that Calvinistic points are "not defensible and not biblical". Furthermore, it's a poor way to get one to take a hard look at an opposing view. I find it interesting how much Calvinism is attacked around here. Usually the truth, if something is the greater truth, shines on its own.
It has been formalized and popularized in the last 30 years. It has had aspects hinted at throughout church history. Something old or new is not proof of truth or not. This is the chronological logical fallacy. What is the Scriptural evidence? The philosophical and historical evidence is secondary, but also supportive.
Origen believed in the preexistence of souls. His antiquity does not make it biblical. The nature of time and eternity is relevant to Open Theism. Eternity as endless duration predates the philosophically tainted 'eternal now' in Judeo-Christianity.
Predestination/sovereignty and free will were not controversies in the early church, yet are highly debated later in church history. This is also very relevant to Open Theism. Classic doctrines like 'strong' immutability are also problematic and are more Platonic than biblical.
Infamous Plug
New member
I always thought if someone asks you "Are you a Christian"one of the better replies is"I sure hope so"