Knight said:
Yet as it relates to God's foreknowldge isn't there really only three reasonable options....
1. God ordains the entire future in every detail (the best label for this belief might Calvinism)
I'm blown away by this, because the only way this can even remotely makes sense must be through Open Theist lenses. It appears to me that the eagerness of Open Theists to characterize all non-open views as "Calvinism" demonstrates (a) an obscurantist approach to doctrinal debate, and (b) an insulated and self-perpetuating distortion of doctrinal history. Labels for those who affirm exhaustive foreknowledge vary widely, including, but not limited to: Amyraldian, Reformed, Covenantalist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, mid-Act dispensationalist. It is completely unwarranted to lump them all together as "Calvinism." A more general and less-denominationally charged label might be "determinist." Or even "Settled View" is fine.
Knight said:
2. God is outside of time and has seen the entire future (the best label for this belief might Arminianism)
Every one of the above labels I mentioned above would fit here as well. Are you aware that the 5 points of Calvinism (Synod of Dordt, C.E. 1618-19) were formulated as a counterargument to the Arminian Articles of Remonstrance (i.e. the 5 points of Arminianism, C.E. 1610)?
Knight said:
3. Other than specific events that He brings to pass, God leaves the future open (the best label for this belief might Open Theism)
I can think of other labels, but I will keep them to myself. :guitar:
Knight said:
Setting aside all the other implications of these beliefs, which one of the above views most closely matches your views on God's foreknowledge?
1. and 2.
Knight said:
More specifically... which Platonistic doctrines that relate to the topic at hand did Augustine "chuck"?
I don't know off the top of my head. Nor does it matter. If you're were simply curious, I could find some excerpts and post them here. Regardless of what it was, the fact remains, Augustine jettisoned some of Plato's teachings. Period. If Augustine had the kind of blind sycophantic loyalty that the Bobs (Hill & Enyart) have accused of him, this would seem incongruous to that loyalty.
Knight said:
I have never read Augustine nor do I care to. I really don't even care what Augustine wrote or thought. Maybe I should, but I don't. ? My strategy is to simply consider the argument that is being made in front of me. Is it or is it not biblical? That's all I really care about.
Doesn't it concern you that you've mischaracterized your opponents' theologies? If you wish to communicate intelligently and to minimize confusion, wouldn't it behoove you to use words and descriptions correctly and to rightly characterize opposing positions? Do you believe you are accountable for what you say and teach? Aren't you concerned that those whom you teach are getting a distorted view of doctrinal history and opposing theologies?
Knight said:
So basically what you are saying (and tell me if you disagree) if John Calvin were alive today he would have an identical view of God's "qualified immutability" as do us open theists?
Probably not, because of how other Open View doctrines ramify as a system of thought and belief. But it doesn't have to be identical for Bob Hill and Bob Enyart to be guilty of mischaracterizing Calvinism.
Knight said:
After all, I cannot tell you how many times I have had to explain to folks that we Open Theists believe that God DOES NOT CHANGE in His righteous character, His essence and His divine nature.
So you apparently, at least partly, agree with Calvinists, Amyraldians, Presbyterians, Covenantalists, Reformed Baptists, Congregationalists, mid-Acts Dispensationalists and Augustine when he writes:
"For who is Lord but the Lord? or who is God save our God? ... Thou lovest, and burnest not; art jealous, yet free from care; repentest, and hast no sorrow; art angry, yet serene; changest Thy ways, leaving unchanged Thy plans; recoverest what Thou findest, having yet never lost; art never in want, whilst Thou rejoicest in gain; never covetous, though requiring usury ..." From Augustine's Confessions, pp 78,79.
Knight said:
And also ... if what you are saying is accurate would you also agree that if John Calvin were alive today he should have no logical objection to the notion that God could change His mind, relent or repent from something He intended to do?
That's is a different discussion. These anthro-figures (e.g. mind and intentionality) were understood by the original audience as describing changes in God's actions, not His plans/decrees. Calvin would undoubtedly have massive problems with the whole system of Open Theist thought, not the least of which is its humanistic existentialism and denigration of God's transcendent attributes.
Knight said:
Jim, I have been running TOL for almost 10 years now. And I seriously cannot tell you how many times I have been told by "so called Calvinists" that "God cannot change in ANY WAY WHATSOEVER for if He did, He would no longer be perfect".
I've seen time and again, Bob Hill and Bob Enyart being the most high-profile offenders, how Open Theists read only what they want to read and hear only what they want to hear. Check my recent post to Bob Hill in the "Open Theism" thread in which he quotes,
yet again, Augustine's statement about the immutability of God's substance and nature. Substance and nature.
Substance.
... and ...
Nature.
Substance and nature.
Will Bob retract his accusation after I've pointed this out to him? Probably not. Why? Because he apparently refuses to see it. This is characteristic of Open Theists. They
so badly want Calvinists to believe in unqualified immutability that they'll deny Augustine's own words and say, "Auggie didn't really know what he was saying. Even though he says he believes God can change, he really doesn't." I saw an Open Theist nearly lose his mind in anger because of all the quotes I was giving him that showed otherwise. He was so spitting mad that he called me a liar. He called me intellectually dishonest. He claimed that he had been attacking the Calvinist view of immutability for eons and that there was no way he was going to let little-old-me come along and teach him anything he didn't already know about what Calvin and Augustine believed. Yet the quotes I gave him are undeniable.
So what am I to think when an Open Theist
claims to have heard a Calvinist make such a claim, while I've
never heard a Calvinist say such a thing.
When Bob Hill ~ "a fine man of God" who "has forgotten more about the Bible than I will ever know" ~ refuses to see this and to retract his false claims, should I expect anything different from his followers?
Knight said:
Seriously, I wish I had a dime for everytime I have read that exact statement or something very close to it on TOL.
If there are so many, it should not be that difficult to find one or two.
Knight said:
From this point forward I will try to make a note of it every time I hear it or see it so I can keep better track. At this point I really don't have the time to go back and sift through all the TOL posts to find examples, although I will assure you they are here.
I've looked, Knight. I can't find them. Please try to find some time to search. I would really like to know where these people, who claim to be Calvinists, get this idea that God cannot change at all in any way whatsoever. It's contrary to Calvin's teachings. It's contrary to Augustine's teachings. It is contrary to so-called Reformed Orthodoxy. It is contrary to the Westminster Confession of Faith and just about every Christian creed in the history of Christendumb.
So if you can find some time to show me where such things are being said by Calvinists, and who they are, I will pursue the matter aggressively and report back.
Jim